



LIBRARY of congress, 





shelf. J.A.US 

- 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
































FOR R4ILROAD READING. 


FOR FIRESIDE READING. 


FOR OFFICE READING. 


^jjaijrattve 


OF THE 


©f am Ammeam (Samgml 


BY SOME AMERICAN MISSIONARIES 


AT BEIRUT, SYRIA. 


iV 


Entered according to Act of Congress May 1, 1879, by George S. Fisher, 
in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington , D, C. 


■X— <.C- 


i V 


WASHINGTON : 

L. G. STEPHENS & SON, PRINTERS. 
1879. 


In ri **r- f T i] 

i <. ; if r ; 1 'V . ; I 

tv. )'lB79 - 

/V • < O , 


jr fV , , 1 ^ \ y JF 

. Of y; *■ 
































A CONDENSED NARRATIVE 


OF THE PERSECUTION OF AN AMERICAN CONSUL BY SOME AMER¬ 
ICAN MISSIONARIES AT BEIRUT, SYRIA. 


TO THE PUBLIC—THE ALWAYS GENEROUS AND TRUTH-LOV¬ 
ING AMERICAN PUBLIC. 


The series of letters published in this pamphlet were pre¬ 
pared for publication in “ The Presbyterian Weekly”—are- 
ligious newspaper published in Baltimore, Maryland—having 
been first submitted to. and carefully read by the Rev. Dr. 
Byron Sunderland, of Washington, D. C., who fully under¬ 
stood the whole matter, and who aided me in introducing it 
through the columns of the Baltimore paper—and this es¬ 
pecially considering all the circumstances preliminary to the 
arrangement for publication of all the facts of the case. 

Previous to the appearance of the first article, a frank and 
full understanding as to the publication of the entire series, 
entitled “ A Sad Story,” was had; but on the publication of 
No. VI., the Editors or Managers of that paper, without 
notice, suspended the continuation of the publication for rea¬ 
sons best known to themselves. 

The writer was well aware that strong and special influence 
was actively at work in New York and Washington, as well 
as Baltimore, to suppress the further publication of these ar¬ 
ticles after letter No. III. appeared, and more particularly after 
No. IV. was published—but after a personal interview with 
the Managers, he had such assurances of their determination 
on having “ once put their hand to the plow, not only not to 
look, but not to turn back” that he then believed the publica¬ 
tion would go on to the end. 




2 


As Vo. VI. was the last number published in “ The Presby¬ 
terian Weekly,” and the suspension ended in the determina¬ 
tion of the Managers to publish no more of the letters, there 
is no alternative left the writer but to put forth the series as 
they were prepared and approved for “ The Presbyterian 
Weekly,” (as far as possible the exact language employed 
though in a few places it was necssary to change certain ex¬ 
pressions in order to adapt the whole to this pamphlet edi¬ 
tion,) in the present form, that the world, and especially 
the American churches, may be better informed of a case in 
which some American missionaries have sought to interfere 
with an American Consul—and without the slightest ground 
or provocation have pursued him with the most cruel and un¬ 
christian aspersions and bitterness until his removal from office 
was accomplished. 

In regard to the publication in “ The Presbyterian Weekly,” 
1 have been given to understand that some “ good people” ex¬ 
cepted to the forcible style of some of my expressions as being 
not pleasant, but harsh, and inelegant to their ears! As to 
that, all I can say is, that “ God manifest in the flesh”—the 
only perfect man that ever lived, found one of his own chosen 
twelve Apostles “ a devil,” and did not hesitate to designate 
him as such; nor to denounce and reprove certain prominent 
men among his own nation and people as “ vipers,” “ hypo¬ 
crites,” “ fools and blind,” “ whited sepulchres,” &c., &c.,—and 

i 

if such were done in the green tree eighteen centuries ago by 
the Savior of men, it is neither strange nor impossible that 
there should be imposters and black sheep in the flock of Amer¬ 
ican missionaries in the dry tree in that same land now! I 
repeat, I have simply patterned after the highest possible, au¬ 
thority, and I can prove every charge and assertion I make. 

Another complained that there are always two sides to a 
story: that the missionary gentlemen have not yet told theirs. 
That is an error. They have told their story, and a pretty story 
it is! They had their say four years ago, and I am convinced 
if it were in their power they would determine that I should 
never have mine —that I should not be heard under any circurn- 










3 


stances—and this is one renewed complaint I have against 
them. They conspired against me without cause, without 
provocation, without a shadow of truth, with cruel injustice. 
They condemned me unheard, and by a series of perjury, sub¬ 
ornation of perjury, defamation, libel, and calumny, unpar¬ 
alleled in any country or age, as unprovoked and wicked as it 
was false, crushed me so effectually that for one year I could 
not get home, and they thought I would never rise again ! 
All investigation by the Board of Missions, by committee, by 
referee, hv arbitration, by consular court, by civil court in the 
United States, and now through the columns of “ The Presby¬ 
terian Weekly,” has been stifled, and I am compelled to go to 
the public in this the only possible way left. As to their re¬ 
plying, I only wish they, or any, or all of them, engaged in 
this conspiracy, would answer me. That is just what I would 
like. 

Without digression, I call the special attention of the reader 
to the legal fact that defamatory letters written and published 
by a Minister of religion, even though under the strongest 
sense of duty, are never privileged in law—and that it is an 
incontrovertible fact, that while God is merciful, mankind is 
not. A stain on one's soul can be washed out with repentance 
and tears—may be expiated: a stain on one’s reputation can 
with the greatest difficulty ever be removed—least of all with 
tears and repentance. 

The intelligent reader will judge for himself and herself the 
merits of the case when he or she shall have perused these 
pages, and which, it is hoped, will be done with the utmost at¬ 
tention and scrupulous care. 

GEORGE S. FISHER. 
Washington, D. C., May 1, 1879. 







4 


LETTEK NO. I. 

TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. 

I have long sought in various ways to make known to a 
generous and truth-loving people the facts that exhibit the 
wrongs I have suffered at the hands of those who are recog¬ 
nized as belonging to a class of men who to a large degree 
have the confidence of mankind—as men like the kings 
and emperors of the earth, “ who can do no wrong ”—that are 
exempt from the frailties of ordinary humanity—that are “ too 
pure” and too nearly immaculate to he fallible like other men. 

In this first communication I will confine myself to a brief 
preliminary statement, premising that I was first appointed in 
the consular service of the United States by President Lincoln 
December 21,1861, and remained in charge of the American 
consulate at Kanagawa, Japan, until 1867, when I was honor¬ 
ably recalled to give place to a gentleman who had been a 
general officer during the war of the rebellion. While in 
Japan I made the acquaintance of Dr. and Mrs. Hepburn, and 
all the American missionaries residing there, whom in many 
ways not necessary to mention I most cheerfully and gratuit¬ 
ously served. 

«/ # m 

In 18741 was appointed by President Grant to the consulate 

at Beirut, Syria, and after considerable delay, the cause of 
which will hereafter appear, I sailed from America with my 
family, and took charge of the consulate at Beirut July 8, 
1874. Soon after it transpired that the Kev. Dr. David Stuart 
Dodge, in his travels about the world, had gathered from a 
woman in Japan some gossip respecting me which he took the 
pains to retail in a letter to Dr. George E. Post, of the Syrian 
Mission. Dr. Post, with missionary zeal, proceeded to com¬ 
municate with Kev. Dr. Van Dyck, of Beirut, and his son Ed¬ 
ward A. Van Dyck, then Consular Clerk of that Consulate, 
and these three very quickly loaded the air of Syria, and espe¬ 
cially of Beirut, with the gossip and scandal retailed by Dr. 
Dodge. The consequence of this proceeding was that not only 
was my commission at home delayed at great expense to my¬ 
self, but on my arrival at Beirut I was plunged into an atmos¬ 
phere of poison, created by these Christian tale-bearers, from 
which it was impossible to escape, and yet even more impos¬ 
sible to grasp or to correct. Then began an open and con¬ 
cealed hostility to me, the like of which has probably not been 
experienced by any representative of this Government since 
its foundation. 


f* 


Mr. Hamilton Fish was then Secretary of State. To him 
secret reports were communicated. By him I w r as condemned 
unheard, and finally superseded, driven from my office, and 
left with my family in a far-distant land without one dollar to 
pay my passage back to the United States. 

Before I left Syria I tried to get an investigation of the alle¬ 
gations against me in the Consular Court, but in vain. In my 
correspondence with the State Department I demanded the 
reasons of my recall, but without avail. After my arrival 
home, I instituted in the city of New York a suit against the 
Rev. Dr. Dodge, to compel him to produce the letter he had 
written to Dr. Post. This suit he has continued to evade, and 
so far as I know is evading now. I also made personal ap¬ 
peals to Mr. Fish to inform me of the charges against me, and 
permit me to meet my accusers face to face. This demand 
was steadily refused. More recently I have called attention of 
the Board of Foreign Missions to the matter, and have been 
advised by them that they have no jurisdiction in the case. I 
understand that Dr. Dodge is a member of the Presbytery of 
Yew York. To what bodies Dr. Post and Rev. Dr. Yan Dyck 
belong I am not informed. If it were possible to reach these 
men before their respective religious courts, I would make a 
further attempt in that direction, but I am now advised that very 
likely I should be defeated in my purpose by the plea of the 
statute of limitations, if not on other technical grounds to which 
men resort who are anxious to avoid troublesome and complicated 
affairs. So that I find myself cut off from all resort and all 
redress, but that of placing before the world the story of a 
transaction which, in its details, must fill the mind of every 
candid man with astonishment and indignation. 

For even this poor possibility I am indebted to the courtesy 
and generosity of my readers, who I sincerely trust will be 
many, and not lacking in that charity that hopeth all things 
and enduretli unto to the end. 

In my next I will give an account of my delay at Washing¬ 
ton, of iny reception at Beirut, and of the commencement of 
the machinations which harassed me there. 


LETTER No. II. 

THE DELAY IN WASHINGTON. 

The Consulate at Beirut, Syria, had been made vacant by 
the recall of Mr. J. B. Hay, at the request of the Turkish Gov- 



6 


ernment, and Mr. Edward A. Van Dyck, Consular clerk, 
was acting Consul. He is the son of Rev. Dr. C. V. A. Van 
Dyck, missionary at Beirut. 

In the winter of 1873-41 made application for reinstatement 
in the Consular service, and finally received notice that Pres¬ 
ident Grant had decided to give me the Consulate at Beirut. 
After this notice it was nearly a month before my nomination 
was sent to the Senate. There it w r as referred to the Commit¬ 
tee on Commerce, which committee referred it to a special 
committee, Senator Buckingham, and there it remained till 
the 8th of April, on which day it was reported to the Senate 
and my nomination was confirmed. 

The special committee having it in charge was Senator 
Buckingham, of Connecticut, now deceased. On April 8tli, 
1874, I had a conversation with him, at his request, which dis¬ 
closed the fact that the delay had been in part occasioned by 
the influence brought to bear against me from certain persons 
in Hew York city who were special friends of the missionaries 
and pretended educational interests in Syria! 

The rule of the State Department requires that immediately 
on confirmation by the Senate the Secretary of State shall issue 
notice of the same and send to the appointee a form of bond 
and oath of oflice to be taken without delay and returned to 
the Department that the bond may be approved and the com¬ 
mission made out. Ho notice of confirmation, or bond, or oath 
of office was sent to me until the month of Mav following:, and 

t-' O 7 

not then till after several interviews by members of Congress 
and others with Mr. Secretary Fish, who, it was understood, 
had been specially requested to suspend action until he should 
hear more from friends of the missionaries and of the Ameri¬ 
can college at Beirut. 

At last, however, the bond and oath of oflice were sent and 
duly executed, and I received my commission and other docu¬ 
ments, dated May 6th, 1874, instead of the day of my con¬ 
firmation. 

Here was a delay of four months and more, to me costly 
and oppressive, occasioned by a secret influence exerted against 
me from the distant post of duty to which I had been as¬ 
signed ! The missionaries at Beirut, acting on their friends in 
Hew York, and they acting on the Secretary of State, who 
lent a willing ear, had thus already, as it now appears, com¬ 
menced an opposition which was to culminate as the sequel 
will disclose. 


7 


The pretext of Secretary Fish for this delay, however, was 
that the name of my predecessor, Mr. Hay, had been sent to 
the Senate for confirmation as Consul at Swatow, China, and 
that my commission must he delayed till the case of his friend, 
Mr. Hay, could be properly disposed of! Mr. Fish well knew 
this act was unprecedented and inexcusable; that it was un¬ 
just to me and discourteous to President Grant and to the 
Senate itself. 

His glaring prejudice toward me was evinced in another 
circumstance. He violated the plain provision of the law 
which allows thirty days’ pay to Consuls waiting instructions 
and making preparation to leave for their post of duty; this 
pay dating, I believe, invariably from the day of Senate con¬ 
firmation. Having wronged me by withholding my commis¬ 
sion nearly a whole month, he then ruled that I was entitled 
only to fourteen days’ pay—that is, from the date of my com¬ 
mission, May 6tli, to that of my departure from Washington, 
May 20th, inclusive, 1874! Expenses are also allowed to Consuls 
“ in transit to post of duty.” I made the transit from my home, 
Augusta, Ga., to Beirut in forty-nine days. The whole sum 
claimed was hut $285, which he unlawfully cut down to $166. 
But when mv successor was sent out he was allowed thirty- 
five days’ pay, and also permitted through the Dispatch agency 
of the Department to transmit several boxes of books, pic¬ 
tures, baggage, bedding, table linen, &c., free of charge! A 
less amount of freight cost me from mv home, via Savannah and 
Barcelona, Spain, to Beirut, $178 gold. This favoritism well 
becomes the man who had let himself and the high dignity of 
his office to his old cronies in New York in the interest of a 
Syrian missionary cabal. One of my friends, a member of 
Congress, who had a conversation with Secretary Fish, told me 
just prior to my leaving Washington that the Secretary of 
State disliked me; that he would heap up difficulties in my 
way, and would seize the first plausible excuse to have me re¬ 
called ! And time but too well proved the truth of the predic¬ 
tion. 

Myself, wife, son, and two daughters arrived at Beirut, and 
on July 8th, 1874, I took charge of the Consulate. The next 
day, according to custom, I called on the Governor of the city 
and such of my colleagues of the Consular Corps as I could 
find. But our reception there was by no means flattering. 
We entered the city as total strangers and took up our quarters 
in a hotel. On the day I arrived the Consular clerk was absent, 
and not a single American was present to welc me us. As 


the days passed on a few of the missionaries called upon us; 
but there was evidently no cordiality, nor even the usual sym¬ 
pathy common to ordinary American travelers abroad in for¬ 
eign lands. 

It is true our advent was amid the heat and discomforts of 
the summer months, which in that climate are very great, on 
which account many persons were absent from the city seeking 
relief in the cooler air of the Lebanon. But there was some¬ 
thing worse than the material elements which we had to en¬ 
counter. The poison of the “ Dodge letter ” had been assidu¬ 
ously distilled, and without knowing at the time the agencies 
or causes of it, we found everywhere a feeling of suspicion and 
distrust toward us which we could neither comprehend nor un¬ 
derstand. 

Our preparations for housekeeping were delayed till Septem¬ 
ber, when, on making inquiries for a suitable house and fur¬ 
niture, we tound that we had little or no credit, and that the 
business men of the city were loath to accommodate us. This 
condition of things filled us with painful astonishment only to 
be increased as weeks rolled on. At length some intelligence 
of the forces at work against us began to dawn upon our 
minds, and by degrees became advised of the chief actors and 
plotters of mischief, and the motives of the deep conspiracy 
which had been formed against us: Taken altogether, I doubt 
if a parallel instance of the reception of a representative of 
the American Government among his fellow-countrymen in a 
foreign land can be found in the entire record of the Consular 
Service. It is not too much to say, using a strong figure of 
speech, that the moment we set foot in Syria we were in a 
nest of vipers that never ceased to hiss and strike so long as 
the object of their venom remained within their reach. 

MISSIONARY MACHINATIONS. 

There can be no doubt, now that the facts are known, that 
the opposition to me was fomented by the Van Dycks and their 
allies, chiefly from a determination on their part to dominate 
the Syrian Consulate, and that they made use of the “ Dodge 
letter ” as the first means coming to hand by which to dispar¬ 
age and break me down even before we arrived in the country. 
Dr. Post must have had that letter as early as the month of 
June, and its contents had been circulated far and wide, not 
only among the Americans in Syria, but among the business 
men and chief officials of Beirut and in the Consular Corps, 


9 


and everywhere where it was supposed the story could by any 
possibility operate to injure me. 

The connection of this zealous diffusion of calumny with 
the motive of one of the chief actors is shown hv the sworn 

t/ 

statement of Achmet, the old Cavass, who has been employed 
at the Consulate for forty-five years, of which the following is 
an extract: 

“ I, the undersigned, and sealed with my signet, disclose and 
speak with solemn truth, that when Mr. Hay left this Consulate 
and country Mr. Edward Van Dyck said, ‘ If it please God, I will 
soon now receive a firmci7i appointing me the Consul General in 
the place of Mr. Hay.’ A short time after that he informed me 
that a person had been appointed to this Consulate named Mr. 
Fisher ; remarking, also, he is poor, false, and corrupted. He also 
informed me he should communicate this information to the Vice 
Consuls (Consular Agents) in all the towns of Syria; that such is 
the character of the Consul we shall have sent to Beirut. I said to 
Mr. Van Dyck, ‘ How is it that you know that the Consul is of bad 
character ? ’ His answer was : ‘ You will see by and by.’ 

“ Some time after this conversation, a sailor came and told me, 
early in the morning, there is a steamer in, and on her is the new 
American Consul. I immediately sent my son to the steamer in a 
boat, and waited myself at the landing place. My son soon re¬ 
turned with the Consul and his family, when I took him to the 
hotel. Not any other of the officers of the Consulate met or wel¬ 
comed him. After awhile, he went with me to the Consulate office, 
and then returned to his hotel. 

“ In the afternoon he saw Mr. Edward Van Dyck, and introduced 
himself to Mr. Edward, who excused his not meeting him before 
because the Consul did not send word of his arrival. The Consul 
said that was not necessary or not convenient. The Consul re¬ 
ceived Mr. Edward as a warm friend, but Mr. Edward appeared 
unhappy. The Consul told Mr. Edward kind words; that he was 
a stranger ; did not understand the ways of business at Beirut as he, 
Mr. Edward, must from long residence, and he would leave many 
things in his hands. 

“ And then the Consul was many days without attention or in¬ 
formation from his officers, (subordinates,) and he soon began to 
find out that the Dragomans were against him. 

“ After awhile the Consul dismissed three of the Dragomans, and 
they then complained to the American Mission gentlemen, through 
Mr. Edward, and they were all very active and greatly annoyed. 
Mr. Edward told mefthese American gentlemen agreed to write 
against the Consul, and asked me to join with them and make 
complaint. I said, ‘No; I have nothing to complain of; nothing 
to do with those matters.’ 


2 


10 


4 ‘After some days Mr. Edward again said to me, ‘Poor man ; 
the Consul intends to dismiss you.’ 

“ I said to Mr. Edward, ‘Why should the Consul do that ? We 
have done nothing to merit that from any man.’ 

“ Mr. Edward said, ‘ He will turn you out as he did the Drago¬ 
mans. You had better take my advice. Do as I do, and complain 
to the American gentlemen.’ I answered, ‘I will not do that. 
It will be time to do that when the Consul tells me I am dismissed.’ 

“And then the Consul remained many days in the Consulate 
without friends, receiving no attention from Mr. Edward ; so much 
so that he seemed to me as a bird without wings, for all his officers 
(subordinates) were against him. I felt sad, and being an honest 
servant of the great American Government, I could not see all 
these things and remain silent. Then I called the Consul’s atten¬ 
tion to these men, saying to him, •' If you are asleep, awake ; look 
around you ; see what business is being done.’ He awoke and found 
out the business going on. He found it was true that his officers 
were against him, using their influence to prevent his influence and 
working with the local Ottoman authorities and the authorities of 
the Lebanon, and that false declarations were made against him.” 

From this plain statement of the old Cavass it will appear 
that Edward A. Van Dyck, the Consular Clerk, in acting- with 
his father and other friends, was guilty of the most palpable 
insubordination and dereliction in duty, and, disappointed in 
not receiving the Consulate, he, with the other conspirators, 
were doing all in their power against me. 

It may be asked why I did not immediately dismiss him. I 
shall subsequently explain this point. My object now is sim¬ 
ply to place before the public the commencement of the mach¬ 
inations of this missionary cabal. 

In my next I shall speak of the indignation meeting gotten 
up by the Van Dycks and their coparceners and the occasion 
of the dismissal of the Dragomans. 


LETTER Ho. III. 

DISMISSAL OF THE DRAGOMANS. 

1 proceed to explain to the public an act of mine while Con¬ 
sul at Beirut, which occasioned the explosion of the covert 
hostility of the Yan Dycks and their accomplices 

Mr. George H. Boker, of Philadelphia, jvas then our minister 
resident at Constantinople. To him the Consulate in Syria 
was in some sense responsible, and with him I constantly ad¬ 
vised on measures deemed expedient in the conduct of my 








11 


office. It was undoubtedly my right, prerogative of office, 
and privilege to select my subordinates, except the Consular 
Clerk, who is appointed by our Government, and whose tenure 
of office is beyond the direct control of the Consul, in fact, 
the Secretary of State and President. Of these subordinates 
there were eight in the Consulate and twelve Consular Agents 
at different points in Syria. But before making any changes, 
and especially in view of the feeling created against me in that 
Christian community, I took the precaution to write to Min¬ 
ister Boker, very freely and fully, on the subject. His reply 
seemed to me a full warrant for taking the course I subse¬ 
quently pursued. 

After a careful investigation, and for undoubted substantial 
reasons, I concluded to change three out of four of my Drago¬ 
mans. I reinstated Mr. Tabet as one of them, with Minister 
Boker’s special knowledge and approval. I also selected Mr. 
Moussa Freige for another, or, in case he could not act, his 
brother, Dr. Selim Freige—but as neither of them, for per¬ 
sonal reasons, could accept the position, I then appointed 
Messrs. Abcarius and Ouardy. The three Dragomans dis¬ 
missed were Messrs. Khouri, Said Shocair and Abd El Nour. 

On this act being made known the smothered fires broke 
loose, and “ the good men” braced themselves for a contest 
with the hated and despised Consul. My action was de¬ 
nounced, a secret protest was dispatched to Minister Boker, 
and to Washington, and a public indignation meeting of “ the 
Americans of all Syria” was called to back it up. 

PRELIMINARIES OF THE INDIGNATION MEETING. 

Too much in haste to wait till the meeting could be heard, 
the chief conspirators united in the following Protest, sent to 
Mr. Boker, to wit : 

“Beirut, September 16, 1874. 

u We, the undersigned, citizens of the United States of America, 
residing in Beirut, have learned that Col. George S. Fisher, United 
States Consul for Syria, etc., has removed three of the Dragomans 
of the Consulate, viz: G. Khouri, Said Shocair and Joseph Abd 
El Nour, and appointed in their places, Messrs. Moussa Freige, 
Ayoub Tabet and Joseph Ouardy. 

“Believing the removal of the first-named gentlemen and the 
appointment of men of such character as that of their successors, 
are a disgrace to the reputation of the American name for its in¬ 
tegrity and wisdom, and will seriously damage American interests 
in Syria, we beg his excellency, the United States Minister, the 


12 


Hon. George H. Boker, will suspend action in this case until time 
has been given to secure a general expression of American local 
opinion in reference to a matter so nearly affecting our National 
honor and personal interests. We have issued to-day a call for a 
meeting at Beirut of American citizens residing in Syria, and as 
soon as it shall have taken place, we will forward the results with¬ 
out delay to the United States Legation at Constantinople. 

Respectfully, &c., 

[Signed] C. V. A. Van Dyck, 

George E. Post, 

Edward A. Van Dyck, 
Henry L. Van Dyck.” 

It was alleged that Rev. B. F. Pinkerton also signed this 
Protest, but he declared that if his name was signed to it, it 
was without his authority, and was a forgery. 

The name of Mr. Samuel Halleck, as he says, was signed to 
it under a misapprehension, and when the matter was under¬ 
stood by him he withdrew his name, and immediately wrote 
to Mr. Boker a note of explanation. 

This important document reaching Minister Boker, it be¬ 
came my duty to inform him of the state of affairs so far as I 
knew them, and under date of October 13th, 1874, I received 
from him the following reply: 

“ Col. George S. Fisher, United States Consul at Beirut: 

Dear Sir : I have been horribly ill for a month, or I should 
have replied to your dispatches and letters long ago. Even now, 
little strength as it requires, I am hardly able to sit up and hold a 
pen. I am mending slowly, and I am not a man to complain in 
view of my present blessings. 

It really makes me sad that you, so recent an arrival, were 
obliged to plunge at once into the flaming life of Syria, and to en¬ 
counter difficulties and ill-feeling almost as you stepped ashore. 
If you had been able to pay me a visit on your way to Beirut, I 
could have saved you from some of the hot water into which you 
innocently tumbled, no doubt in great astonishment. 

It is a shame and a scandal that the American residents of Syria 
should be the people to give such a reception to the accredited 
Representative of their Government. I have no sympathy with 
such a course, and if these men look to me, your normal sustainer 
and official defender, to join their movement, they have reckoned 
without their host. 

As you know, I received a memorial and some private letters 
denouncing you and your appointments. Throughout these doc¬ 
uments there was nothing but denunciation, not one clear charge, 
not one fact stated, not one particle of testimony to sustain even 


13 


the ill opinion. Do these people speak by inspiration ? and do 
they expect me to listen to them as prophets ? That is not the 
way in which things are done in the service to which we both be¬ 
long, and men of ordinary intelligence might, on a moment’s re¬ 
flection, so understand the case. I wrote a letter to one of your 
defamers and told him to circulate it among his friends, which he 
will not forget while he continues to intermeddle with your official 
affairs, or to bestow unasked for advice upon his Minister. Stupid 
as God may have made me according to the appreciation of your 
enemies, I have been long enough in the service to understand 
plainer my duties and to perform them in defiance of popular 
clamor. 

As to your appointments, they are your own, and I have no more 
to do with them than, to compare small things with great, the 
President has to do with the appointments upon the Staff of a 
General Officer. If you should make bad appointments in your 
own Consular family, you will be the one to suffer by them, 
and in your hands will remain the remedy. It is true that by the 
service you are responsible to this Legation for your official con¬ 
duct, and if you should commit abuses on clear proof being given, 
it would be my duty to notice them, and first advise and then to 
correct, and last of all to report you to the Department. But, in 
God’s just name, to judge by the tone of the people of Beirut, 
nothing less would have satisfied them than that I should have sent 
you home before your bed was warm, with vour character blasted 
and you a suppliant for justice to the Department which confided 
to you your commission. Is this Christian charity, or is it even 
common humanity? One of the signers of the ‘Memorial,’ Mr. 
Halleck, had the gentlemanly instinct and the manhood to write a 
note to me and withdraw his name from the paper, acknowledging 
his mistake in having dipped into affairs that did not concern him. 
This is the only spark of light that I have seen throughout the 
whole dreary blunder of your opponents. 

I was deeply pained to see the name of Mr. E. A. Van Dyck, 
United States Consular Clerk, upon the ‘ Memorial ’ in question. 
According to my ideas of official etiquette that act w r as one of official 
insubordination, a public protest against the action of his superior 
officer—a sort of thing which, if permitted, would send any service 
to * * *. Had your case been mine, I should not have tolerated 

that proceeding for a moment. Suppose my Secretary of Legation, 
(an impossible supposition in his case,) but suppose for a moment 
that he had signed a public protest against my official act, and sent 
the paper to the Hon. Secretary of State. I assure you that Mr. 
Secretary of Legation would have followed that document home 
by the next steamer, with instructions to report himself to the De¬ 
partment. Perhaps in the case of Mr. E. A. Van Dyck his con¬ 
duct was the mistake of a very young man (29 years of age,) and 
may be pardoned by you, but not, I should say, unless he made 


14 


to you the humblest possible apology, and transmitted the same in 
writing to your Minister. I am rigid as todiscipline in any organi¬ 
zation that professes to be a service, and I believe in penalties for 
a breach of official discipline that may seem to the unreflecting far 
too severe for the offense. To the blackguard who strikes you in 
the street you give a thrashing; but the soldier who strikes his 
officer is shot for the offense, and the latter law is founded upon 
reason, while the laws of nature may settle the former outrage, out 
of the same deductions of the same reason. I beg you as your best 
friend and well-wisher to insist upon the observance of strict dis¬ 
cipline in your official relation with your Consular subordinates. 
Personally, I am on the best and most familiar terms with all my 
people, but the moment our official relations are resumed, then the 
sky changes, and woe to the man who steps an inch beyond the line 
of his duty. I am also persuaded that any other condition of things 
would be utterly destructive, first to my headship, and secondly, to 
the merest routine business of the Government. 

If these observations seem too rigorous to your judgment, tell me 
so frankly; but my impression is, that before you have been long 
at Beirut, you will be obliged to enforce the same discipline in your 
Consulate, differing only in kind and in degree, that you learned in 
the army. According to your last note the Department gave Mr. 
Van Dyck a lesson in discipline when he applied for a Conge with¬ 
out consulting you. You cannot take a leaf out of a better book 
than that which the Hon. Secretary opened for your Consular Clerkl 

What became of the meeting which the Missionaries proposed to 
hold over you on the ist of October? Why was I asked to await 
the action of that meeting? Was the corpse not ready for the 
funeral, or what was the matter? By the way, I omitted to tell 
you in the proper connection that Mr. Halleck admitted in his 
note to me that Mr. Hay’s removal was the underlying cause of the 
dissatisfaction with you. You were on the water, and may not 
know therefore that just after Mr. Hay’s removal the Missionaries 
of Syria sent an urgent protest, and a delegation, too, I believe, to 
the Department, asking to have Mr. Hay reinstated. The move¬ 
ment was an utter failure, and hence these tears shed in bitterness, 
not only over you, but also over our official chief. In one of the 
letters sent to me about your official affairs the writer said that in 
case Mr. Fish would not remove you, and in case he were backed 
up in that naughty course by the President, an appeal would be 
made to the Senate of the United States. These holy men may be 
able to pilot one to heaven, but I should not be willing to trust them 
as guides through the public offices at Washington. 

I have no advice to give you about the removal of Mr. Van Dyck, 
because I cannot at this distance form a judgment. But as the one 
fact that has come before me, the signing of the memorial, that 
would be fatal to Mr. Van Dyck, in my official consideration, of 
his disqualification for the office. 


15 


Once more as to this whole business of your appointments, I 
recognize your entire right to have any one whom you may nomi¬ 
nate appointed to the various positions within your gift. The only 
way in which I can possibly interfere in your affairs would be by 
giving you friendly advice, conceived in your own interest—advice 
which you may take or decline according to what must be your 
better knowledge of the qualifications of the men among whom you 
are living in daily intercourse. For me to act otherwise would be 
to assume responsibility which I have no right to take. For sup¬ 
pose that the men whom I in a manner might thus force upon you 
should prove failures, what then, and who would be to blame ? 
Paddle your own canoe, my dear sir. If I see rocks ahead, I may 
sing out; but only as a friend upon shore, not as a voyager in your 
private boat. I have written you a long screed of doctrine, but I 
wished to cover the whole ground, and to drop the seeds of sug¬ 
gestions that may be of future interest to you. 

With my best wishes I remain, dear sir, yours, sincerely, 

[Signed.] George H. Boker.” 


I find this communication already so extended that I will 
reserve further documents relating to the indignation meeting 
till next week. 

The reader can have no difficulty in comprehending the views 
of our Minister at Constantinople, at that time, in relation to 
this movement of the conspirators so far as it has been detailed. 
But it will he observed that his allusions to Mr. Secretary Fish, 
and to my being on the water at the time the New York friends 
of the Missionaries in Syria were exercising their influence at 
the Department, show either that he was never fully aware of 
the true facts of the case, or, that in the haste of writing, his 
memory had somewhat confused the dates of events. But it is 
immaterial for the main purpose, which is to relate what he 
then thought of this virtuous outburst of the Missionary Cabal. 
How far he subsequently respected his own doctrines here laid 
down will appear in the end. 


LETTER No. IV. 

THE INDIGNATION MEETING. 

The call for a meeting of “ the Americans in all Syria T ’ was 
as follows: 

*•' We, the undersigned, respectfully call a meeting of American 
citizens to be held in Beirut, on Thursday, the first day of October 
next, at eleven o’clock A. M., at the American Press, (Missionary 
Rooms,) to consider the circumstances attending the sudden dis- 



missal of Messrs. G. Khouri, Joseph Abd El Nour, and Said Sho- 
cair from the post of Dragoman to the United States Consulate of 
Beirut, and the appointment of Messrs. Ayoub Tabet, Moussa 
Friege, and Joseph Ouardy in their places, and to take suitable 
action in reference to the same. 

“Believing that the action of Mr. Consul Fisher, in making the 
above-named changes, is highly detrimental to the interests of the 
citizens of the United States residing in Syria, and the standing 
and reputation of the United States Consulate at Beirut, in the 
eyes of the local authorities, the Consular Body, and the public 
generally, we most earnestly request a full attendance. 

(Signed) C. V. A. Van Dyck, 

George E. Post, 

Edward A. Van Dyck, 

B. F. Pinkerton, 

Henry L. Van Dyck." 

Mr. Halleck’s name purported to be signed to this call, 
but was afterwards withdrawn, at the same time that it was 
withdrawn from the memorial sent to Minister Boker, as al¬ 
ready explained. But, on consultation, he did attend the 
meeting. 

Mr. Pinkerton afterwards stated in writing the circumstances 
under which he signed this call, which statement will be given 
in full in proper time. The managers of this movement pro¬ 
fessed to have sent a copy of this call to every American in 
all Syria. But there were five known American citizens in 
Beirut, friends of the Consul, who received no copy. The 
copies sent to the Americans of Haifa, also friends of the 
Consul, could not reach them in time. They were Germans 
and naturalized Americans, and were neither wanted or ex¬ 
pected. 

When a public meeting of American citizens is called in a 
foreign country where there is only a Consulate, the universal 
custom is to invite the Consul, and ask him to preside. In 
this instance the civility was entirely omitted, and very special 
efforts were secretly made to keep him and all others sus¬ 
pected to be his friends, out of that meeting. Besides this, 
special proxies were solicited from missionaries who could 
not be present in person, authorizing the managers to sign 
their names to anything the meeting might adopt, so that the 
action of the Americans in all Syria should be a unit! 

At length the indignants were assembled pursuant to the call, 
and the following is a verbatim, copy of the proceedings of the 
indignation meeting of “ the Americans (missionaries) of all 


17 


Syria,” held at the Beirut Press (Missionary) Rooms, October 
1, 1874, and sent to me October 5, 1874: 

“Beirut, October i, 1874. 
Col. George S. Fisher , Esq. , Consul at Beirut , etc.: 

Dear Sir : Having learned that you, in the exercise of your 
official prerogative, have removed Messrs. G. Khouri, Joseph Abd 
El Nour and Said Shocair, from the post of honorary Dragomans, 
and appointed in their places Messrs. Ayoub Tabet, Joseph Ouardy 
and Selim Friege, we beg to remonstrate with you and to ask you 
to reconsider action which we believe will be a great injury to your¬ 
self, and to American interests in Syria. 

Respectfully, your fellow citizens, 

[Signed,] Henry H. Jessup, Chairman , 

Gerald H. Dale, Jr., Secret’y, 
Theodore S. Pond, 

Samuel Halleck, 

C. V. A. Van Dyck, 

O. J. Hardin, 

George E. Post, 

Harvey Porter, 

John Crawford, 

Edward A. Van Dyck, 

James S. Dennis, 

Henry L. Van Dyck, 

Samuel Jessup, (by proxy ,) 

J. F. Patterson, “ 

J. Beattie, “ 

F. A. Wood, “ 

D. Matheney, “ 

F. W. March, “ 

H. Easson, “ 

Now, in looking upon this list, it must be understood that it 
does not contain the names of one-half the Americans then in 
all Syria,—that some of them are proxies , sent for the purposes 
of the managers, in blind obedience to their behests, and that 
one of them afterwards withdrew his name, ashamed of the 
whole proceeding. This left really but eleven names of men, 
the principal of whom, if they had been attending to their own 
proper business—the business for which they were ostensibly 
in the country, and 011 account of which the American churches 
are sending them annual support—instead of attempting to 
control my affairs—would not have so completely illustrated 
the old apothegm— 

“ The mountains labored, and brought forth a mouse.” 

That some of these men may have acted honestly I would 
not deny, but Dr. Post and the Van Dycks cannot be so ex 

8 


18 


cused. No doubt the tone of the paper adopted was much too 
mild for them, and they saw that they must resort to other and 
baser means for the accomplishment of their purpose. 

It will be observed that though the name of the Rev. Mr. 
Pinkerton is signed to the call, he did not attend the meeting. 

The following is a copy of his statement to me in relation 
thereto: 

“ Beirut, June 14, 1875. 

Col. Fisher, U. S. Consul: 

Dear Sir : You asked me about a certain paper purporting to 
be a call from all the American citizens resiling in Syria, &c., and 
to which my name was signed, and I will cheerfully give the facts 
in the case so far as I am concerned. 

1. The paper was presented to me by Mr. Edward A. Van Dyck, 
Consular Clerk, not by his father Dr. Van Dyck, who is not per¬ 
sonally known to me at all. The said Mr. Edward A. Van Dyck 
read me the paper, and I then signed it. Having only heard it read 
once, of course it would not be possible to identify it, but I can 
mention with precision what I understood that paper to be, and 
with what intent I signed it. 

2. I understood from the paper, and from the remarks of Mr. 
Edward A. Van Dyck, that something had occurred in the then 
recent administration of affairs of the United States Consulate at 
Beirut, especially, peculiar circumstances in the dismissal and ap¬ 
pointment of certain Dragomans whose names I heard, but who 
otherwise were not known to me, which furnished a suitable reason 
for such a meeting. To such a mass meeting, if full and open, 
I could see no objection in principle, and I distinctly understood 
that it was to be of such a character. I did not at all understand 
that the case was to be prejudged, or judged at all, but at the called 
meeting to have the peculiar grievances mentioned, and if then proven 
to be real grievances to take such steps for their removal as become 
Christian men and American citizens. In such an event, it occurred 
to me as the proper course, first of all, to have made 1 full and open 
statement of all alleged grievances to the United States Consul 
himself, and if necessary, accompany it with an humble petition to 
him, asking him to reconsider what he had done in the premises. 

3. That the paper I signed was a protest or a memorial, to be 
sent as such to the minister at Constantinople, I did not understand 
nor intend. I do not think American citizens have any right to dic¬ 
tate to their Consuls what they should do in any matter, and espec¬ 
ially in the matter of the appointment and dismissal of their agents, 
Dragomans, &c.—a matter which the law places entirely in their own 
hands. The right of mass meeting, if public and open, with that 
of petition, I recognize in principle. I did not attend said meet- 
i ng, my main reason for not doing so was, because I became afraid 



19 


that those who were moving in the matter, were not doing so in 
the manner and in the spirit becoming so grave and delicate a 
matter, and not in that subordination and respect due to the United 
States Consul, as the Representative of the government to which' 
God in His providence had made us subject, and whose official ad¬ 
ministration He solemnly requires us to obey. 

I have no wish to criminate Mr. Edward A. Van Dyck in the 
matter, further than that what I understood from him was as above 
stated, a call for a mass meeting. What he and others might have 
done in the whole matter relating to yourself I know not certainly, 
but you have doubtless other means of knowing. 

I am ashamed and sorry indeed, that any movement whatever 
was made in- the matter. Had it ever occurred to me, that it 
would have taken the form it has taken, and been attended with so 
much disrespect to the United States Consul, it would, at first men¬ 
tion, have met my unqualified disapproval, as it does at this 
moment. 

All this apait from another question which underlies the present 
one, the frequent removal of Consuls, and that often on the ex¬ 
pressed disapprobation of foreign missionaries. Having been a 
foreign missionary some years in this country and in Egypt, I speak 
with knowledge in the matter. For the honor of the Gospel, I 
would fain hope, that never again shall the influence of foreign 
missionaries and home committees be used to disturb, or remove a 
United States official. For yourself, sir, I have nothing but true 
respect. To me in your official place, you always have given all 
proper attention and assistance. I know of nothing in your course 
of administration unworthy of your place, or differing at all from 
that of other Consuls in this city and country. These statements 
I make and most solemnly. Nor do I objeet to your making what 
use of them you choose. 

Respectfully yours, 

[Signed,] B. F. Pinkerton.” ' 

This statement was handed to me but three days before the 
arrival of my successor at the Consulate, so that this gentle¬ 
man’s testimony extends over the entire period of my Consu¬ 
late life at Beirut. 

The paper adopted by the indignants at their great mass 
meeting of October 1, 1874, was of course not to be wholly 
ignored by me, and I accordingly, on its reception, sent to the 
chairman of the meeting, the Rev. Dr. H. IT. Jessup, a com¬ 
munication in response, which may yet appear in this narra- 
tion. 

The grand document was also duly forwarded to Mr. Minis¬ 
ter Boker at Constantinople. Likewise I, on my part, had en- 


20 


deavored to keep him informed of the progress of results so 
far as my observation could extend. 

Accordingly I received from him a communication under 
date of October 17, 1874, to the following effect : 

Col. George S. Fisher, £7 S. Consul at Beirut: 

Dear Sir : Before this note reaches you, you will have received 
my dispatches and private note, informing you that my delay in 
reply to you was caused by severe illness. I am happy now to let 
you know that I continue to improve in 'health daily, and that my 
sorrows are over, for the present at least. 

Your note of October 6, containing the mild proceedings about 
your official conduct, and also your very proper letter to the Rev. 
Mr. Jessup are all before me. Of the ‘ proceedings,’ I have re¬ 
ceived a copy from another source about a week ago. As the 
whole thing ended in nothing but a letter of remonstance to you, 
the affair is none of mine, and I see no reason why I should dis¬ 
turb myself about it. 

1 see in this letter, the product of the meeting, the same shrink¬ 
ing from logic, the same obscurity of statements false or true, even 
the same disposition to deal in empty generalities and mere de¬ 
nunciations, which characterized the ‘memorial’ as to the same sub¬ 
ject. Respectable as are some of the signatures to the letter, 
the paper is itself of no force, because it advises you to do what it 
may be supposed you did before you made your appointments, viz : 
to reflect very well, reflect according to the advice, and then act 
as you saw fit. 

I was once more pained to see the name of Mr. Edward A. Van 
Dyck appended to the letter. Mr. Edward A. Van Dyck is not, 
and cannot make himself by any independent act while he holds a 
commission from the United States, an ordinary American citizen, 
free to sit at meetings and sign memorials and letters against the 
official conduct of his superior officer. The signing of that letter 
was another act of insubordination, which, I am sure, that the De¬ 
partment of State would not countenance were the facts of the case 
laid before the Hon. Secretary of State. 

The gentlemen who held the meeting concerning your official 
conduct strangely mistake the relations which exist between you 
and them. You are in no sense the representative of the American 
citizens residing in Beirut, nor are they in any sense your con¬ 
stituents. However inclined you may be and should be to con¬ 
sider any proper representations addressed to you by Americans in 
Syria, you are responsible for your official conduct to but two 
powers under heaven, directly to the Department of State, and 
indirectly to this Legation. 

You have made no official report to me of the irregular conduct 
of Mr. E. A. Van Dyck, although you might have done so with 


21 


great propriety, and I should have been forced to have written to 
him in terms of severe condemnation. As the matter now stands, 

I would rather that you should make no official report to me ; but 
if you think a report of his conduct necessary, you should address 
your dispatch directly to the Hon. Secretary of State. Mr. Van 
Oyck holds his commission from the Government, and therefore, 
in the end, it will be for the Government to deal with his case. If 
your report were addressed to me, I could but submit it for instruc¬ 
tions to the Department, which course might be more roundabout 
than effective. You are at the same time at liberty to transmit to 
the Department copies of the two notes which I have written to 
you upon this painful subject, omitting, of course, those jocular 
passages which I let off in the confidence of private and familiar 
correspondence. If you should send copies of those notes, be so 
good as to explain that they were personal and unofficial notes, and 
that you have made no official report of the events in question to 
me, preferring to deal directly with the Department. If, on the 
other hand, you should elect to forgive Mr. Van Dyck on the re¬ 
ception of an apology from him, I have nothing to say against that 
course. Mercy is a divine attribute; but I would not limit its 
exercise to Heaven. 

Your course under this unprovoked and indefensible intermeddling 
with yo nr official affairs and legal privileges has been most judicious 
and forbearing , and entitles you to the warmest commendation. 
Had I been in your place, patient man as I am reputed to be, I fear 
that I should not have acted so prudently. I should have hurt some¬ 
body’s feelings. I should have broken something in my wrath— 
chiefly, I fear, the ten commandments. Things will come to a better 
issue for you as you have managed them, and I highly approve your 
whole conduct. 

If the Americans in Syria are intending to place you under a 
sort of social ban, that will be very disagreeable for you for a time, 
but I am sure that you will live it down and make them ashamed 
of their action in the end. Besides, you in your official position 
can better live without them than they can without you, and that 
condition of things will, in the future, bring about an understand¬ 
ing and a shaking of hands all around. I know, to their shame, 
that these people have already set scandals afloat about you, and 
that the reports of them have come through their Consuls to my 
colleagues at this post; and that, too, from some men who confess 
never to have seen you, and to know these injurious stories from 
hearsay merely . If the charity in your land of Syria will cover all 
the sin, a great deal must he expected from a little cloth. 

With my best wishes, I remain, dear sir, yours, sincerely, 

[Signed.] George H. Boker.” 

Now, either Mr. Boker was already practising duplicity 
towards me, or else he very little understood the character of 


the men with whom I had to deal. Their hostility was as cold 
and relentless as the grave. They were not to be thwarted in 
their purpose by the singular fiasco of the mass indignation 
meeting. They still had powerful friends in Hew York, and 
a willing instrument in Mr. Secretary Fish. 

My next will treat of correspondence with the State Depart¬ 
ment concerning the Consular Clerk and what became of it. 


LETTER Ho. Y. 

THE CONSULAR CLERK. 

Our law respecting Consular Clerks seems to have been 
framed with special reference to holding them in place, 
without regard to character or conduct, and every circum¬ 
stance seems to combine to make them secure in office. 
For example, when a man has once obtained the appoint¬ 
ment, if he chooses to abuse his office, the law provides 
that his removal can only be for “ good and sufficient cause in 
writing,” sent to the Secretary of State, but he cannot remove. 
He must transmit the “ good and sufficient cause” to the Pres¬ 
ident, and he cannot remove. He must transmit the whole 
case to the Senate of the United States. Then the papers 
are referred to a committee, which in turn reports the case 
to the Senate, and if “ the cause” be sufficient, a bill for the 
removal of the accused. And till all this is done, he remains 
undisturbed. The Secretary of State or the President may 
recall a Minister or a Consul, but not a Consular Clerk ! 

How take the case of my Consular Clerk. I could not dis¬ 
miss him if I would. We were in a distant part of the world. 
He was the son of a missionary, and the chief of a board of 
conspirators against me. These conspirators had powerful 
friends in Hew York, who had a controlling influence with 
Secretary Fish. If I had sent charges to the Legation at Con¬ 
stantinople, they could only be transmitted to the Department 
of State, and these in this case would be the end of the matter. 
I was nothing to Secretary Fish. He himself was a Hew 
Yorker, the friend and neighbor of the men who were uphold¬ 
ing the Syrian Mission. What he ever did for me was only 
what he was compelled to do by the absolute requirements of 
his position, and it was very evident, that on every occasion, 
where it was possible to do so without a too dangerous perver¬ 
sion of his power, he ruled against me; and when he found 



23 


fhe matters I had to communicate were too pressing, or too 
stubborn to be set aside, he then refused correspondence, and 
left me without advice or support. 

Now the first thing required of me for the removal of my 
Consular Clerk after the advice of Minister Boker on this 
point, was to report the case to the State Department, which 
I did. There it rested. I received no reply from the State 
Department, but a simple acknowledgement of the receipt of 
my dispatches relative to this case, but not a word of instruc* 
tion or information of the views of Mr. Secretary Fish on the 
subject. I had an intimation from the Legation that a repri¬ 
mand had been sent to the Consular Clerk. But if it was, I 
never saw it, and it is certain I received no apology from E. 
A. Van Dyck for his insolent and outrageous insubordination. 
But on the contrary, he was left in his place to carry on with 
the Christian conspirators their nefarious schemes against me. 

Had Mr. Secretary Fish then and there done his duty; had 
he reported the case to the President, and taken the proper 
steps for the removal of the Consular Clerk, he would have 
taught a profitable lesson to the Missionary Cabal, and would 
have maintained the dignity of the Consulate at Beirut, against 
the shameless intermeddling of Christian ministers with affairs 
that in no way concerned them. But on this occasion, the 
State Department was silent as the grave ! The Cabal never 
ceased their efforts. The more they were disappointed in their 
measures, the more venomous they grew. They invaded my 
private business, they poured poison into every ear that would 
listen, they dogged my footsteps, they watched my move¬ 
ments, they were closeted with every person whom it was pos¬ 
sible to reach, with whom I had any dealings. The “ Dodge 
letter” was to be verified and confirmed. They not only 
defamed me themselves, but they procured others by false¬ 
hood and chicanery and perjury, in speech and writing, to de¬ 
fame me. 

A NEW METHOD OF WARFARE. 

The object of the conspirators now was to lay a foundation 
for some inquiry into my official conduct, that could be used 
against me in the State Department. They finally found 
three persons, upon whose cases documents were framed in 
Beirut, and sent to Minister Boker. How far he was then 
prepared to abet their conspiracy it is impossible for me to say, 
but the representation made him from Beirut, upon the three 
cases, induced him to pursue a course which, while it proved 


24 


most disastrous to me, at the same time cannot fail to impli¬ 
cate him in the deepest duplicity. 

Abdo ] )ebbas was my Consular Agent at Tarsus, and the 
especial friend of Edward A. Yan Dyck. 

Antonio Yenni was my Consular Agent at Tripoli, and 
having professed Christianity, had become the particular pet 
of the missionaries. 

These two men were induced by the conspirators to make 
written charges against me to Minister Boker, to the effect 
that I had dishonestly and corruptly attempted to exact sums of 
money for retaining them in office. 

Madam Beauboucher had consulted me in regard to obtain¬ 
ing a divorce from her husband in my Consular Court. My 
Consular Clerk had importuned her to make a complaint 
against me, and having put her statement in writing to suit 
the purpose, sent it secretly forward to the Minister. Besides 
these three cases, all manner of reports were circulated about 
town. The Rev. Dr. Yan Dyck, Dr. Post, and others whom 
they could influence, whether American or Syrians, were daily 
engaged in overhauling my personal affairs, and in putting 
the very worst construction on every word and act. Such was 
the condition of things when a new character appeared upon 
the scene. 


THE EMISSARY. 

Early in the month of December, a Mr. Baraczi, an unnat¬ 
uralized foreigner, a Hungarian attache of the American Le¬ 
gation, young, inexperienced, totally ignorant of American 
laws, and the rigid proceedings of American courts, but as it 
now appears, highly accomplished in the art of deception, chi¬ 
canery, and hypocracy, made his advent into Beirut. He had 
been sent out from the Legation at Constantinople, ostensibly 
to investigate an alleged outrage of Turkish soldiers at Latakia, 
but in reality to try me secretly upon the accusations of my 
enemies. He had been in the city two or three days, stopping 
at a hotel, but daily visiting my house and office, when he 
mentioned the fact to me that he had heard a great number 
of complaints from the Van Dycks and others, but that most 
of them were frivolous and worthy of no attention, and that 
there were only three points which Minister Boker had di¬ 
rected him to inquire about, namely: the three cases already 
referred to. This man remained in Beirut some time, and al¬ 
most every day broke bread at my table. He insisted on mv 
going with him to investigate the case at Latakia, and always 


25 


up to the day of his final departure, manifested the greatest 
confidence and respect, both towards myself and family. He 
spoke in the most contemptuous terms of the Van Dycks and 
their missionary set. lie professed to detail to us in our fam¬ 
ily privacy many of the things he had seen and heard in his 
migrations about the town. One day he surprised us by say¬ 
ing that, that day he had seen the celebrated 44 Dodge letter,” 
which Dr. Post had shown him. A few days before, when 
Mrs. Fisher had earnestly appealed to Dr. Post to let her see 
this letter, he solemnly assured her that he had destroyed it! 
Baraczi, being both judge and jury on my case, held his court, 
and examined his witnesses daily behind my back, at his hotel, 
or in the homes and haunts of the conspirators, and then sat 
with myself and family at mv table, and ridiculed the idle 
stories which he said the Van Dycks had set afloat. 


Mean while I prepared a sworn statement of all my dealings 
with the three persons who were said to have made complaints 
against me, to wit: Debbas, Yenni, and Madam Beauboucher. 
I sent one copy of this statement to Minister Boker by mail, 
and gave another copy of it to Baraczi himself. When this 
man left us to return to the Legation, he very positively as¬ 
sured me that he had sifted all the complaints that had been 
brought to him against me, and that he should make no un¬ 
favorable report to the Minister at Constantinople. Thus the 
emissary came, did his work, and departed. 


From this time forward, everything operating injuriously to 
me, both at the Legation and the Department of State, was 
studiously withheld from me. Baraczi, it now appears, re¬ 
turned to the Legation, and made out his report on my case. 
It was transmitted to Secretary Fish, and he immediately set 
about seeking for m\ r successor. 

Meanwhile my dispatches were unheeded. The only notice 
taken of them was a brief reply from Mr. Assistant Secretary 
Hunter, who informed me that 44 responsible persons had com¬ 
plained of me.” But what the complaints were, or who made 
them, I was not permitted to know, from Mr. Secretary Fish. 
I demanded that the charges should be divulged—that my ac¬ 
cusers should meet me face to face. I protested my willing¬ 
ness and earnest desire to have a full and rigid investigation 
of all my acts. But my demands and protestations were like 
whistling against the wind. There was no response. The 
Secretary of State had resolved upon the sacrifice: my en¬ 
emies had triumphed ! 



26 


MY SUCCESSOE. 

With becoming diligence Mr. Fish looked about for his 
man. He finally fixed upon Mr. John T. Edgar, then of 
Omaha, Nebraska, but a relative of the Edgars of New York 
City—one of whom is of the firm of Booth & Edgar. In three 
days this gentleman was put through the appointment, and on 
the day of his confirmation, March 12,1875, was commissioned 
as my successor in the Consulate at Beirut. He arrived at 
Beirut June 17, 1875, and immediately took charge of the 
Consulate. This man was received by the conspirators with 
open arms, for he was a man after their own heart. 

SUBSEQUENT EVENTS. 

It was now a trying time with us. Had we not found sym- 
pathy and kindness outside the malignant missionary Cabal, 
we must have been left to endure I know not what. Of 
course, we felt most keenly the terrible injustice that had been 
done us; and while lingering there I labored with great pains 
to obtain a hearing in the Consular Court, which should bring 
out all the facts as between my defamers and myself. I 
brought the matter before the Consul again and again, but 
was put off upon one pretext or other, till I was persuaded 
there was no intention to have a hearing in his court. 

Meantime my son found an opportunity to return to Amer¬ 
ica, and finally arrived in Boston, October 9th, 1875. He 
proceeded to New York, where he had an interview with Mr. 
William A. Booth, who told him that his father was removed 
from the Consulate at Beirut upon charges reported by Ba- 
raczi to the Legation, and sent from thence to the Depart¬ 
ment of State. My son proceeded to Washington to learn, if 
possible, what these charges were, and to see if he could not 
soften the heart of Secretary Fish towards me. But he could 
only obtain some general intimations or surmises of the na¬ 
ture of these accusations, which seemed to be to the effect 
. that I had received money from my Dragomans for their ap¬ 
pointment to office, or something of that nature. On receiving 
from him an account of what he had seen and heard in New 
York and Washington, I immediately addressed seperate 
notes to each ol my four ] )ragomans, requesting them to state 
whether any money had been paid me by them for their ap¬ 
pointment, and I received replies from all of them, which will 
subsequently appear in this narrative. 

At last, worn out and heart sick, through the generosity of 


> 


27 


some noble friends, we were able to take leave of the land, 
which had been for us so full of sorrows, and set our faces 
homeward. On July 13th, 1876, alter 108 days passage, we 
landed in New York, and soon afterward arrived in Wash¬ 
ington. 

In my next I shall treat of Baraczi’s report as sent to the 
State Department by Minister Boker, under date of February 
12, 1875. 


LETTER No. YI. 
baraczi’s report. 

On reaching Washington, I made it my business to 
visit the Department of State and demand a copy of the 
documents on which it was alleged that my removal 
from the Consulate at Beirut had been made. I was told that 
I could have a copy of it only by paying twenty cents for every 
hundred words. On complying with this condition, I received 
what purported to be a copy of Baraczi’s Report, July 28th, 
1876, sent to the Department of State, by Minister George IT. 
Boker, February 12th, 1875. Up to July 28th, 1876, it had 
been locked up from me as closely as if it had been buried 
under a mountain. 

If any one can imagine my surprise and indignation on 
perusing its contents his powers of fancy must be very great. 

It consists of forty pages of foolscap manuscript, and states 
distinctly that Baraczi, under the order of Minister Boker, of 
November 25,1874, to examine certain charges brought against 
Mr. Fisher, the United States Consul at Beirut, left Constanti¬ 
nople the next day and arrived at Beirut on the 3d of Decem¬ 
ber, 1875. Here it may be as well to introduce a copy of the 
document which Baraczi brought to me from Mr. Boker. It 
reads as follows: 


“ Constantinople, Nov. 26, 1874. 

George S. Fisher, Esq., U. S. Cousui at Beirut. 

Dear Sir : This note will introduce to you M. G. Baraczi, the 
second Dragoman of this Legation, who visits Syria for the purpose 
of obtaining correct information about the outrage near Latakia. 
You will please give him every facility for that purpose. 

You will also acquaint Mr. Baraczi fully with all the difficulties 



28 


that have lately occurred at your consulate so that I may understand 
the whole business as though I had a report of it from your own 
lips. 

I remain, sir, sincerely yours, 

Geo. H. Boker.” 

When Baraczi had submitted to me the three special matters 
which he said were the only ones he was directed to investigate, 
I immediately prepared a full answer and explanation of them, 
under oath, as before stated, and despatched the same by mail to 
Mr. Boker. Baraczi was still at Beirut, as it now clearly appears, 
carrying on my trial in his own way, and listening to the cal¬ 
umnies of the conspirators by night and day. He was taking 
sworn (?) statements from persons instigated and named by 
the Van Dycks, and others, to be used against me without ever 
hinting to me the real nature and design of his operations, or 
giving me the slightest opportunity to confront the accusers or 
cross-question the witnesses; and yet he had the effrontery to 
come smiling to my house and table nearly every day of his 
sojourn in the city. In this condition of things I received an¬ 
other note, under date January 7, 1875, from Minister Boker: 

“My Dear Sir: * * * * As for your own affairs with your 

enemies, be sure that you shall have justice, both from the Depart¬ 
ment and myself. I have already [Mr. Boker then had before him 
my sworn statement as to the three matters submitted to me by Ba¬ 
raczi, the Yenni, Debbas, and Beauboueher matters,] written a pri¬ 
vate note to Mr. Fish, giving him a full history of your case, and of 
the persecutions which you suffered when you first came to Beirut. 
After Mr. Baraczi’s return, I shall receive a report as to the state 
of affairs at the consulate, and I shall then write officially to the 
Department regarding this painful subject I believe that I already 
understand your case, and can see no danger in it for you. I 
judge from the frank way in which you have written to me that you 
feel secure in your conscious rectitude, and I trust that Mr. B.’s re¬ 
port will confirm you in your position. Please tell Mrs. Fisher for 
me that she must not distress herself about the affair, for whoever 
may suffer from the results of the investigation, it shall not be the 
innocent. I know Syria as though I had made it, and all its peo¬ 
ple, and you need have no doubt that I am qualified to judge 
# justly of any moral or legal product of that deceptive province. 
Be patient, and I trust, in time, you will acknowledge that you 
have been treated fairly by your official superiors, and that if any 
injustice has been done you the wrong-doers may be made to 
suffer. 

With my best wishes, I remain, my dear sir, yours sincerely, 

Geo. H. Borer.” 


29 


Another note was likewise received from Minister Boker, 
under date of January 27, 1875, from which the following is 
an extract in reference to myself: 

* * * “ I still feel confident of your being able to overcome 

the severe pressure made upon you, and see nothing in your way so 
tar to a full vindication, notwithstanding your enemies are spread¬ 
ing slanders about you to the four winds of heaven. You will 
please open your heart to Mr. B. that he may make a clear report 
to me on his return regarding the whole subject. * * * 

Yours, sincerely, 

Geo. H. Boker.” 

Baraczi returned to the Legation, and his report was sent 
with an official despatch by Minister Boker, to the Department 
of State, February 12, 1875. As soon as the mails could 
bring the news rumors were spread abroad in Syria that I had 
been, or was to he, removed. The whispering aloud became 
so painful that Mrs. Fisher, in the anxiety of suspense, sent a 
note to Mr. Boker asking him for any information he might 
have upon the subject. To this note Mr. Boker replied, under 
date of April 26th, 1875, as follows: 

“My Dear Mrs. Fisher: As it was impossible to make a satisfac¬ 
tory reply by telegraph to your note of the 19th, you will please to 
pardon me the tardy form which I have chosen. My reason for 
not replying by telegraph was that I know nothing more concern¬ 
ing Colonel Fisher’s removal than you seem to have seen in the 
newspapers of America, as until the present moment I have had no 
official information on the subject. I do not, however, desire to 
delude you with a false hope. I believe that yqur husband has 
been removed, because I have read in two or three of our newspa¬ 
pers the intelligence that a Air. Edgar had been appointed to the 
consulate at Beirut. Beyond this simple announcement I am as 
much in the dark as to the facts of the case as you are. 

You doubtless know what influences have been at work against 
Colonel Fisher ever since the day of his arrival at Beirut. Every 
one in the town—Christians, Turks, and even his colleages, the 
foreign consuls—seem to have joined in this attack upon your hus¬ 
band. The investigation into the affairs of the consulate was or¬ 
dered by the Department without any suggestion from the Lega¬ 
tion, and was no doubt the result of representations which were 
made at Washington, and of which it seems not to have been neces¬ 
sary that I should have been informed. Knowing as you do the 
character of the honorable Secretary of State, neither you nor Col¬ 
onel Fisher can suppose that any known injustice has been done by 
the latter. I cannot but regard your misfortune as one of these 
unhappy accidents which sometimes fall even upon the innocent. 


so 


I need hardly tell you that I feel the deepest sympathy with you 
in the distress of mind which this sad affair has occasioned you r 
and which it was not within my power to avert after it had passed 
into the hands of those who are both Colonel Fisher’s and my own 
official superiors. With the hope that better fortune than the 
present may be in store for you and your family, 

I remain vours, sincerely, 

Geo. H. Boker.” 

Three days later than tliis letter, April 29th, 1875, Consul 
General and ex-officio Secretary of Legation Goodenow wrote 
to me, as follows : 

“My Dear Sir: Your letter of the 20th was received. We have 
no knowledge of the appointment of your successor, except the 
mentiou of it in the New York Times, to which you allude. If it 
be true, I sincerely sympathize with yourself and family. It is usual 
when a consul is appointed for the Department to send his commis¬ 
sion at once to the Legation, in order that his berat may be ob¬ 
tained. But nothing of the kind has been done in this case. Mr. 
Boker knows no more about the change than I do. 

Sincerely yours, 

J. H. Goodenow.” 

Now put these things together, and is it possible to resist the 
conclusion that Minister Boker had finally been influenced by 
the persistent representations of the conspirators to send the 
Baraczi report to Secretary Fish, that this functionary might 
have a plausible pretext for my removal, and that this was 
done by Mr. Boker, w T ell knowing the result of it, but at the 
same time showing a fair and friendly face to us and professing 
confidence in our being able to withstand the opposition against 
us ? And here let me add that a very short time after this 
Minister Boker was transferred to the Legation at St. Peters- 
burgh, having been succeeded at Constantinople by the Hon. 
Horace Maynard, of Tennessee. Thus it 'svas that the man who 
secretly gave me the fatal stab, and denied all knowledge of 
the causes of my removal more than tw r o months afterwards, 
was magnificently rewarded, while 1 was to be crushed and 
destroyed to satisfy the vengeance of a nest of American mis¬ 
sionaries whose treatment of me and my family from begin¬ 
ning to end is an infamous outrage that yet remains unavenged 
in the light of the sun. 

CONTENTS OP THE REPORT. 

It is, perhaps, not my part to expose to the public the gossip 
of my enemies, and yet to show how utterly shameless and 


31 


groundless were their calumnies I give here the substance of 
the tales collected by Baraczi while he remained at Beirut and 
was sitting at my table from day to day in the confidence of 
private friendship. If you could afford room I would publish 
this report verbatim. After going on seriously to recount that 
I had asked money of my Dragomans, and dismissed them 
because they refused my demand; that I had exacted money 
from each of four of my Consular agents for retaining them 
in office; that I had offered a position to a person formerly 
Dragoman at Jerusalem on condition that he would receipt for 
double the sum to be paid him; that I had employed three 
Dragomans, for which they had paid me sums of money; that 
I had had my drafts certified by a Mr. Taldr (Abd Ei Hour) 
without selling him the same; that I had persuaded Madam 
Beaubouclier to sue for a divorce, and taken $300 as counsel 
fees, charging on the Consular books only $50 and keeping 
the rest to myself; that I had dishonestly sold a passport to a 
certain person for six dollars; that I collected six dollars from 
a merchant for making out an affidavit; that I undertook to 
cheat one of my Consular Agents out of the price of a mare 
by an act of deception before witnesses; that I purchased 
another mare from an Arab Sheik, never intending to pay 
him for her; that I had said Secretary Fish had told me as my 
salary was small I must make up the deficiency by exactions 
of money from my subordinates; that I displayed a pomp in 
living wholly unwarranted by my honest resources, and thereby 
got heavily in debt. 

The report then professes to give the counter-charges which 
I am supposed to have made against my Consular clerk, E. A. 
Van Dyck; but as I shall deal with that subject in another 
place, t pass over it now. 

The spy, scavenger, judge and jury, Baraczi, theu relates 
how he proceeded to investigate these various accusations— 
holding his court at all times, day and night, closeted with my 
enemies; running hither and thither, back and forth, from me 
to them and from them to me, but keeping his counsel to him¬ 
self; never once confronting us face to face; permitting no 
cross-examination or rebutting of testimony, and thus he gives 
the result of his investigation. I simply state it in substance: 
That after Mr. Hays’ recall, E. A. Van Dyck endeavored to 
obtain the appointment as Consul at Swatow, China; that he 
wrote to his and his father’s friends in America, especially to 
Mr. Dennis, a reputed intimate friend of Mr. Fish, and also to 
Mr. Hunter, of the State Department, but received no answer 


before the arrival of Mr. Fisher as Consul at Beirut; that lie 
lived in the hope of obtaining the position, and that under this 
conviction, while acting Consul at Beirut, he assumed an arro¬ 
gance of conduct towards those applying to him for his official 
services, of which several instances are given. But Baraczi’s 
report attempts to exonerate Van Dyck from the charge of 
having attempted to obtain the Consulate at Beirut, or having 
sought to disparage my reputation and ruin my credit prior to 
my arrival at the Consulate. The report also excuses the Con¬ 
sular clerk for not having been present to receive me on my 
arrival, and states that the Rev. Dr. Van Dyck, the father of 
Edward, was one of the first to call upon me, and that the 
missionaries at Beirut assured him (Baraczi) that their relations 
to Mr. Fisher promised to be very hearty. 


[This was not true. Dr. Van Dyck was then ill, but he did 
send word to me he would call so soon as his health permited.] 

The report goes on to state that I then lived at the Hotel de 
Bellevue, and that Mr. Freige, in whose house the Consulate 
office was, had loaned me a sum of money. It then recites the 
arrival of the Dodge letter, stating that he was an American 
missionary in Japan, and that his letter gave me a very un¬ 
favorable character. 

Vow, for the first time, we have the substance of that letter, 
as related second-handed by Baraczi. The following is the 
delightful gossip retailed by Dr. Dodge to Dr. Post: That in 
Japan I was fond of high dinners, pomp and display; that I 
was a poor man, and obliged to borrow money everywhere; 
that I turned every stone to make money, and that I left a bad 
name in Japan; that I was a bad man; and the letter con¬ 
cludes by warning the missionaries at Beirut against trusting 
me or lending me money. All this beautiful story was ob¬ 
tained by Dr. Dodge from the voluble tongue of Mrs. Hep¬ 
burn. 

The report goes on to say that Dr. Post read this letter to 
the missionaries and the Consular clerk in order to warn them. 
Delightful man! Cautious, provident, far-seeing Dr. Post! 

The report represents that almost at the same time with the 
arrival of this letter I tried to raise money from my four Drago¬ 
mans; that one of them, an intimate friend of the missionaries, 
having knowledge of the Dodge letter, refused to lend me 
money, and that the same was the case with another of the 
Dragomans; that a third Dragoman, however, Mr. Takir, did 
loan me 4,025 piasters, and the fourth and acting Dragoman, 


33 


Esper Sliucair, negotiated for me another loan of 4,628 piasters, 
(26J to the American dollar.) 

The report then represents that I wrote a letter to Madam 
Beauboucher, at Jerusalem, inviting her to the Consulate for 
the purpose of instigating her to sue for a divorce, and that on 
her arrival I told her the divorce would cost about $240; that 
she consented to pay all legal expenses, and then returned to 
her home at Abieh. 

The report then represents that E. A. Van Dyck received 
some private letters from the United States, informing him that 
Mr. Dennis could not obtain for him the Consulate at Swatow, 
China, and that it was not until this time that he thought of 
obtaining the Consulate at Beirut, which, of course, had first- 
to become vacant. 

The report then proceeds to give a beautiful account of Mr. 
E. A. Van Dyck. I use now the precise language of the report: 
“ He began to watch every movement of Mr. Fisher. He ob¬ 
served him, his family, his official documents and his private 
letters. He even read one of the latter which had been acci¬ 
dent! ally forgotten on the desk of Mr. Fisher. He knew ex¬ 
actly what fees Mr. Fisher received, and what amounts he 
entered upon the Consular books.” 

The Report then goes into further detail of the cases of the 
divorce suit, of the horse purchase, of the oiler to appoint a 
Dragoman from Jerusalem, and of the dissmission of the three 
Dragomans, and of the appointment of three others in their 
places—and relates the great excitement which arose in the 
indignation meeting at Beirut. 

It represents that everybody supposed Mr. Fisher had made 
these changes because the persons dismissed would not furnish 
him money, while those who would were appointed; that no¬ 
body seemed so much excited as E. A. Van Dyck, and especi¬ 
ally when he found that the very men were appointed whom 
he hated so much, that his hostility broke forth in open op¬ 
position. 

The Report then relates that E. A. Van Dyck, assisted by 
his father, succeeded in convoking a sort of meeting and in 
drawing up a protest which was sent to the Legation. 

The Report then is occupied with an amplification of these 
various matters, and goes on to relate that these complaints 
against me had been brought before the State Department and 
the Legation, but that I only knew that they had been sent to 
the Legation; who brought them before the State Depart¬ 
ment, the Report omits to state. 

5 


34 


The Report then graciously condescends to relate that from 
the 15th of October to the 3d of December, I had behaved 
myself so well that no complaint was brought against me. 
And here the Report takes another turn. The emissary pro¬ 
ceeds to relate his own experience in Beirut. 

“No sooner,” says he, “had I arrived in Beirut, than 1 had 
to stand a regular seige at my hotel. Dr. Van Dyck found 
out every creditor of Mr. Fisher; and I am sorry to say their 
number is infinite—and sent him to me.” Pious and peace 
loving missionary, Dr. Van Dyck! “ People came continually, 

asking for my intervention, in order to obtain their money. 
Having no special instructions on the subject, I did not direct¬ 
ly interfere with the question, though I told Mr. Fisher what 
was going on, and he did his best to appease his friends.” 

. . . “The news spread by the Messrs. Van Dyck, especially 
the report that Mr. Fisher would soon be recalled, made Con- 
stintine Bey fear he would never get his mare nor his holsters.” 
The matter of the holsters I will explain at another time. 

Baraczi then goes on to tell about the coming of Madam 
Beauboucher to complain that she had given me money for 
the divorce, and that I had spent the money and done nothing 
for her; that he explained to her the circumstances, and told 
her the Consul’s conduct was entirely justifiable; that she did 
not seem convinced and went to Mr. Fisher to demand either 
the divorce or the money—with much more to the same effect. 

The Report then proceeds to detail the affair of the false 
pass port, which, it was alleged, I had sold for six dollars. 

And finally we have the conclusion and decision of this 
Hungarian spy, judge, jury, and perambulating Syrian Court, 
summed up in the following terms. I give simply the sub¬ 
stance, not the exact language : 

“ i. Three Dragomans were dismissed without any other cause but 
their refusal to give money or the wish to get back what they had 
given, while the fourth was retained because he did not insist upon 
the loan being paid. 

2. That Mr. Fisher invited two, at least, of his Consular agents 
to Beirut, and offered to conduct their suits for counsel fees—which 
is unlawful. 

3. That he had a draft, and vouchers certified by Mr. Takir, 
Abd El Nour, without selling them to him. 

4. That he compromised the Consular dignity in the divorce 
case. 

5. That he kept the mare of the Consular agent, without intend¬ 
ing to pay more than one-fourth her price. 


6 . That he has contracted so many debts since his residence in 
Beirut, that the apprehensions of his creditors are justified.” 

Then the Report graciously proceeds to exonerate me front 
the following accusations : 

1. That I promised a position to a person from Jerusalem under 
illicit conditions. 

2. That I exacted money from four of my Consular agents for 
their retention in office. 

3. That I gave a false pass port for six dollars. 

4. That I sold an affidavit for six dollars. 

5. That I intended to keep the mare of Constantine Bey without 
paying him—This accusation, Baraczi says, “ reposed on the mali¬ 
ciousness of Dr. Van Dyck." [And this was the Holster case be¬ 
fore referred to. Yes it did, like all the rest, “repose on the 
maliciousness of Rev. Dr. Van Dyck” and his son, the Consular 
clerk Van Dyck, backed up by Dr. Post and the balance of the 
conspirators.] 

6. That I said I had been told by Secretary Fish that I must eke 
out my salary by contributions from my subordinates.” 

The Report then proceeds with the following compliment¬ 
ary statements—namely: that by the letter of Mr. Dodge to 
Dr. Post, my credit and reputation had suffered partly—though 
not to the extent to excuse the means I employed to get 
money; that my mode of living was such as to create heavy 
expenditures and require extraordinary means to cover them ; 
and then, as an illustration these same cases are referred to, 
that I contracted so many debts as to be in everybody’s mouth, 
and make people complain loudly of me. And then, this ve¬ 
racious judicial Report, mixing up truth with falsehood, con¬ 
cludes with the following mournful dirge: 

“The above facts, and still more the readiness of the Van Dyck 
party, who brought these and many other untrue Reports to the 
knowledge of the public, have deprived Mr. Fisher of his reputa¬ 
tion, and neither the American colony, nor the public, nor the 
Turkish authorities, nor his Consular colleagues, want to have any¬ 
thing to do with him.” 

The charge of extravagance and my manner of li ving “ re¬ 
quiring extraordinay means to cover them,” was a gratuitous 
and contemptible fling, utterly untrue, and unworthy of notice, 
except that it was regarded at the hands of the Secretary of 
State. The fact was every missionary in Beirut, except per¬ 
haps three, lived in better style than myself and family. They 
all had better furnished houses, more servants, nearly all, male 


36 


and female each a horse, dressed better, and lived better than 
I could afford. My predecessor and all my colleagues kept 
horses, carriages and servants at will, and there was not one 
of them that did not live in luxury compared with myself; 
besides, they and these “ poor missionaries,” each had and 
kept two establishments, one in Beirut, and another in the shades 
of the mountains of Lebanon, where one-third of every year 
they and their families spend their time doing nothing but gos¬ 
sipping, keeping cool, visiting and entertaining one another. 

Will it now be believed that such a document as this, pro¬ 
cured as it was, manipulated as it was, kept so long wholly 
from my knowledge as it was, would be made the ground of 
my summary removal by any Secretary of State ? Was it not, 
at least, the duty of Mr. Secretary Fish, to transmit to me a 
copy of this document and summon me to answer for myself 
before striking the blow which would send me home in 
disgrace ? But I postpone what I have to say on this subject, 
as this communication is already too long, I fear, for the space 
you have to bestow. 


LETTER FTo. VII. 

AN EXPLANATION. 

Before proceeding to comment on Baraczi’s report, I may 
as well here as anywhere make a brief statement of my pe¬ 
cuniary position on my arrival at my post of duty—because 
as this narrative unfolds, it will be seen that my only crime 
has been 'poverty — if by poverty be meant the want of 
ready money after a long and expensive voyage with a wife 
and three children—to meet necessary expenses suddenly in¬ 
curred to provide a home for my family and my legitimate 
duties and business; and my only offence against the Van 
Dycks and their friends—and the only ground of provocation 
on their part was my obtaining the position which Edward A. 
Van Dyck coveted and expected. The statement of Old Ach- 
met, the veteran Oavass, was true, and the reader will not 
forget it in this connection. 

I am a man not altogether without property—but I have 
been unfortunate, not only in the loss of considerable property, 
honestly acquired by my own labor and brains, but in some 
investments that have turned out badly. While I was Consul 
in Japan, a most fearful and destructive tire in the city of our 
Consulate destroyed an immense amount of property, and my 



37 


own effects did not escape. In that fire, besides all my house* 
hold goods and valuables, stores for six months’ use, clothing 
of every kind of my family and self, and new furniture, car 
pets, bedding, &e., &c., for a new Consulate building, I lost 
a law and miscellaneous library which had cost me upwards 
of $4,000. In the 42d Congress a bill passed the House of 
Representatives to indemnify me to the extent of $2,500 for 
my law library, but it was defeated in the Senate through the 
opposition of Mr. Fish—so admitted by him to Mr. A. L. 
Dennis, of New Jersey, and so the Government has never 
been generous enough to allow me a single dollar for a 
serious loss to me while in its foreign service. Here also a 
chapter might be written for the edification of the American 
people. 

After my return in 1867 from Japan, I went to live in the 
State of Georgia, where I invested the sum of $25,000 and 
upwards in real estate and improvements, but owing to the 
unsettled condition of things during the period of reconstruc¬ 
tion and the general depreciation of property in the South, 
this property was rendered almost valueless. I could do no 
business, and my resources were thus locked up by circum¬ 
stances, which compelled me to turn in other directions. In 
this dilemma, during the winter of 1873-’74,1 came to Wash¬ 
ington to seek reinstatement in the Consular service. Sick¬ 
ness involved my family, long delay added to my embar¬ 
rassments, my expenses in reaching Beirut were unavoidably 
greater than I had anticipated, and it is true that on my ar¬ 
rival there I was in need of ready money, and was compelled 
(as many a Consul has had to do) to anticipate drafts which 
would be drawn bv me on the Government on the 1st of 
October, 1874—my first quarterly accounts—I borrowed such 
sums as were absolutely necessary, and in a few instances ob¬ 
tained credit for necessary purchases. But my negotiations 
were limited, for I did not then know of the libelous “ Dodge 
letter,” or what use had been made of it to injure and defame 
my character and reputation, and destroy my credit, I thought 
I was among neighbors and friends , so far, at least, as the 
American missionaries were concerned. 

I found at the Consulate four Dragomans—one, the acting 
or salaried office Dragoman, Mr. Esper Shucair, and the other 
three, honoraries—Messrs. G. Houri, Joseph Abd ElNourand 
Saad Shucair. The Schucairs were brothers. In a conver¬ 
sation, about three weeks after my arrival, with Mr. Van 
Dyck, Consular Clerk, I frankly stated my situation, and asked 




38 


Mm if he could not put me in the way of getting a loan for a 
convenient-time. After some reflection he said hehad no money, 
(which I found afterwards was totally untrue.) He said that 
probably Mr. George Houri, one of the Dragomans, might 
grant me a loan. I then sent for Mr. Ilouri, and had a con¬ 
versation with him, telling him what I wanted, and why I 
wanted it, and that I should like the time to be sixty 
days, or, if possible, to October 1, 1874, when my quartorly 
drafts would he drawn. He promised me the money. 
Two days passed and I did not see him nor hear from 
him. I then sent him a note, and he called again to say he 
could not let me have the whole sum 1 wanted, ($500,) and 
asked if I could not do with less. I said I would be glad to 
get $375. He left me, as I understood, to bring me that sum 
that day. I waited two days more, and wrote him again. He 
then informed me that “ he was not a merchantthat “ he 
had no money to loan,” and “ could get no money for me !” 
I then saw that he had deceived me, and was purposely in 
collusion with Van Dyck, but for what purpose, I could not then 
fully comprehend. Baraczi, while in Beirut, never mentioned 
this matter to me, and I never knew it was made the ground of 
accusation against me. till I found it in his report in Washing¬ 
ton. 

As to the Dragoman Saad Shucair, Baraczi reports a de¬ 
liberate and wholesale falsehood when he says that I tried in 
the same way to get money from him. Nothing of the kind 
ever occurred, and I never heard of it till I saw it in Baraczi’s 
report in Washington, July 28, 1876. 

As to the Dragoman Abd El Hour, the only money trans¬ 
action I ever had with him was a loan of 4,025 piasters, about 
$150, for ten or fifteen days, which I refunded him within the 
time agreed upon, and never thought of again. This also I 
never knew as a charge against me till I read it in this Baraczi 
report in Washington. 

In regard to Mr. Esper Shucair, he did negotiate a bill or. 
note of mine (after failure with Van Dyck and deceit of 
Houri) in my behalf with a Mr. Abd El Faker, and though 
it was not presented on the day it fell due (I have no doubt 
now purposely not), yet as soon as it was presented, I paid it 
by a check on the Imperial Ottoman Bank, where it was pre¬ 
sented and drawn the day of its date. This case also was made 
a matter of accusation against me, but not known by me until 
I saw it in Baraczi’s report in the State Department. 

And as to my receiving money from the Dragomans I ap- 


39 


pointed, to wit, Messrs. Moussa Friege, Abcarius, Ouardy, and 
Tabet, I was first informed of it through a letter from my son 
on his arrival in New York, who was told by Mr. William A. 
Booth in the month of October, 1875, that this was the prin¬ 
cipal cause of my removal by Secretary Fish; “ that I hacl 
sold these Dragomans their places, and therefore had been re¬ 
moved.” This information reached me in Beirut in the latter 
part of the following month—the 28th or 29th of November, 
1875—and I at once took steps to settle that charge. I asked 
in writing from each of the gentleman named a written state¬ 
ment in relation thereto, and received their replies respectively 
as follows: 

'“Beirut, December 1,1875. 
Colonel George. S. Fisher, &c., 

Sir: I have received your note of yesterday in regard to my ap¬ 
pointment as Dragoman of the Consulate of your honored Govern¬ 
ment at this place. I have the great honor to say to you that you 
freely and voluntarily, so far as I know, gave me the appointment, 
and you neither asked nor received from me one cent for said ap¬ 
pointment. You never asked nor recived from me nor any friend 
of mine, to my knowledge, any favor for my appointment. 

I have the honor to be always your obedient servant, 

(Signed.) Alexander Effendi Abcarius.” 

“Beirut, December 1, 1875. 

Colonel Fisher. 

I have received your note of 30th of November, and have to say 
that I am astonished at the information you have given me. There 
is not one word of truth in the charge that you ever asked me for 
money for the favor you conferred upon me by making me a Drago¬ 
man of the American Consulate at Beirut. I know that in my own 
appointment and that of Mr. Abcarius, whom I recommended to 
you, and whom you appointed in the place of Mr. Shucair/not one 
para was ever asked or paid. 

I am, sir, most respectfully, your friend, 

(Signed.) Joseph Ouardy.” 

“Beirut, December 2, 1S75. 

Colonel George S. Fisher. 

Dear Sir : Although I have answered your note of the 30th 
ultimo, I must add that the statement made to your son in regard 
to your action and appointment by sale of Dragomans to your Con¬ 
sulate is untrue. You voluntarily and freely gave me the appoint¬ 
ment of Dragoman, on the recommendation and desire to do me 
justice of the Hon. Minister Boker, because of my unjust removal 
by Mr. Hay. 

1 never paid you for said appointment, and you never to my 
knowledge received pay for the same. The only money given to 


40 


vou by me was a simple debt, as I have always had with other gen¬ 
tlemen for several years, 

I am, dear sir, very truly and sincerely, yours, 

(Signed,) Ayoub Tabet.” 

“Beirut, December 2, 1875. 

Colonel George S. Fisher. 

Sir : In answer to your notes dated November 30th and Decem¬ 
ber 2d, by which you ask me if you ever received money from me 
or my brother, Dr. Selim Friege, for the appointment of Drago¬ 
man, I beg leave to say that this was not the case. I could not 
accept the appointment you had proposed to me because of the 
Ottoman title (decoration) I have, and my brother because of his 
frequent absence and other causes. 
jl remain yours, very truly, 

(Signed.) Moussa Frtege.” 

THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 

I now take up seriatem the charges which Baraczi reports to 
be well founded. First, to wit: “ That three of the Drago¬ 
mans were dismissed without other cause but their refusal to 
give money, or the wish to get back the amount given, while 
the fourth, who procured money and did not urge the payment, 
was retained in the office.” 

How utterly ex parte and basely untrue this recital is must 
appear from the statement by me already given, every word of 
which I could have proven on the spot. I never asked of one 
of these men money 7 as a gift, or thought of such a thing. I 
did, upon the suggestion of Consular Clerk Van Dyck, ask a loan 
for a certain time for a certain sum of one of them, which he 
first promised me, but afterwards deceived and disappointed 
me about. I did, as stated, borrow of another of them a sum 
stated, and paid it within fifteen days, just as I agreed. Of the 
third I never asked nor borrowed a single penny. Of the 
fourth, who w T as the salaried Dragoman of the Consulate, 
whom I retained in office without hope of fee or reward for of 
any kind, I asked assistance to procure me a temporary loan, 
and he procured it for me; and when it was presented, not to 
exceed five days after its maturity, I paid it, as stated. These 
are the simple facts; and the reason of my dismissing the three 
honorary Dragomans was because of my discovery of how and 
wherefore they were appointed—because they were acting in 
collusion and conspiracy with Van Dycks and confreres; that 
they were inferior men in standing, reputation, influence, and 
position every way; that one of them, at least, if not all of 
them, had been poisoned against me by the “ Dodge letter,” 


and the scandalous circular accompanying it, signed by Drs. Van 
Dyck and Post; that they had been instrumental and actively 
at work to defame my character, reputation, and credit, based 
upon that letter and circular, and that they were unfriendly to 
me and were cooperating with my detainers, especially with 
Edward A. Van Dyck, to undermine me and make “ Syria too 
hot tor me! ” Of course I had to learn all this It took time 
where secrecy and Syrian cunning and strategy were at work 
under a cloak of righteousness, not to say criminality, that did 
its work under cover of darkness and duplicity unparalleled. 
Dees any man wonder I would keep such men around me ? 
1 trow not that knows me. Any man with any self-respect, 
situate as I was, would not have tolerated a set of subordi¬ 
nates who were acting in collusion with his determined ene¬ 
mies a day longer than I did. And the development of this 
vile conspiracy most clearly shows, and Baraczi’s report con¬ 
firms it, that these simple business transactions were subse¬ 
quently fairly tortured into charges of bribery and malfeasance 
in office at the instigation of the Van Dycks and their accom¬ 
plices. These men knew very well that any such open charge then 
upon the spot would have been met with an answer and proofs 
that would have exposed their calumny and the calumniators 
to public scorn and* reprobation; to confusion and utter igno¬ 
miny. A cross examination of any one of their witnesses ” 
would at once have unfolded their conspiracy and blown to the 
winds their whole scheme. Hence it was, at the indignation 
meeting of October 1, 1874, no such thing was breathed, or 
even insinuated. The whole question was placed upon public 
grounds. Vow, if such a charge was ever true, it was then 
true and fresh in the minds of the dismissed Dragomans, and 
all that was required to cover me with disgrace was to have 
called them, with Mr. Yenni and Mr. Abela, into the public 
meeting, and then and there listened to their stories of an at¬ 
tempt on my part to extort money from them for retaining 
them in office. Then was the time, and place, and opportunity. 
And, if true, what could I have done ? But no such thing 
was done. Hot a man of them would have dared to make 
such a statement openly in that meeting, or at that time. As 
Minister Boker so graphically said, in his letter of October 13th, 
1874, “ the corpse was not yet ready for the funeral.” No; 
this whole matter was most palpably an after thought in their 
secret plottings aud machinations against me. The “ meeting 
in itself,” as Mr. Boker said, was “ an utter failure.” The 
odor of the Dodge libels and the Van Dycks and Post circular 


42 


must be made good. It was beginning to be a critical mat¬ 
ter with these conspiratois. I must be made out “a bad man,” 
and when Baraczi appeared upon the stage of action they 
were ripe for perjury and subornation of perjury. It suited 
their malignant spirit far better to work by stealth and in the 
dark, and so they loaded down the spy and star chamber judge 
with their vile tales of extortion and sale of office; and he, 
without a syllable of all this to me, disgraced his report with 
this infamous and utterly unfounded accusation. Mr. Boker, 
forgetting all his professions of justice and fair dealing, with¬ 
out one word to me of its nature and contents, afterwards de¬ 
nying all knowledge of it, (see his letter, April 26, 1875,) 
transmits this document to the State Department, and Mr. 
Secretary Fish—all the while as secret and silent as the grave 
toward me, while my dispatches and appeals lay unanswered 
before him—fondly seizes upon it as a wished-for pretext for 
my removal! 

2. The second charge which Baraczi reports as well founded 
is “ that I invited at least two of my Consular Agents to Bei¬ 
rut and promised to take up their law suits. Mr. Fisher had 
no right to ask fees for fis legal advice, as it is his duty to 
protect the rights of his subordinates. In the case of Debbas, 
Dingwell being a foreigner, and Mr. Debbas an American 
protige , the case would have to be tried in the Defendants’ 
Court, that is, in the United States Consulate at Beirut. Mr. 
Fisher intended, (italics my own,) to act as a lawyer and judge 
at the same time.” 

The above is the sage conclusion of this Hungarian spy, 
judge, jury, attache and executioner. He condemns me not 
for what I did, but for what he thinks I intended to do ! The 
bold ignorance of the man exhibited in this statement should 
be enough of itself alone to condemn bis whole report in dis- 
paragment of me as utterly worthless. These two Consular 
Agents are supposed to be Messrs. Yenni and Debbas. The 
simple facts involved in the cases of these men are as follows: 
first as to A. Yenni. 

The first time I ever saw this man was not on my invitation 
to him to visit Beirut, but when he voluntarily came to the 
Consulate armed with a letter of introduction from the Rev. 
Samuel Jessup, brother of Rev. Dr. Henry H. Jessup, chair¬ 
man of the indignation meeting, and which he endorsed nolens 
volens by proxy, a copy of whicli I here insert. 


“Tripoli, August 17, 1874. 

Col. George S. Fisher : 

My Dear Sir: The bearer, Mr. A. Yenni, your Consular Agent 
at this place, will need no introduction from me; he is about to 
visit Beirut to pay his respects to you and to attend to some 
legal business. My object in writing is simply to say a word about 
his business. He has long been trying to collect a large debt from 
the ex-judge here and has been baffled in every attempt. He has 
exausted every honest resource and is obliged now to appeal to the 
Beirut Court. In this he will need your assistance, which I doubt 
not will be cheerfully rendered. You know well enough to make 
it unnecessary for me to say so, that a word from yourself about a 
case is worth far more than any amount of work from a subordinate. 
Mr. Yenni’s claim is an honest one, which is not true of all claims 
brought to the Government through some of the Consulates, and 
he is justly entitled to it morally and legally. I state this as I 
happen to be have been cognizant of all the transactions of it, and 
also that you may feel that you are using your official influence in 
the right direction. 

With kind regards, very sincerely yours, 

[Signed,] Samuel Jessup." 

Believing from this letter as well as Mr. Y T enni’s own state¬ 
ments and exhibits then made to me, (August 29, 1874,) that 
the case was entitled to consideration, I took immediate action 
for the proper preliminary steps with a view to the transference 
of the case to the Mixed Commercial (Turkish) Court of Bei¬ 
rut, not before me at all, as desired. The man was profuse in 
his offers to pay all expenses—but he never paid me one cent, 
and I never received money from him, not even postages paid 
The truth is, he and his son, George Yenni, (intimate with E. 
A Van Dyck,) came into immediate contact with the conspi¬ 
rators, and from that time, after September 1, they used him 
as their tool. His statement against me professes to bear date 
September 1, 1874, but it was not written until subsequent to 
the indignatian meeting of October 1st, because if it had been 
it would have been heard of and used at that meeting; but 
I will not stop here to relate some strange items of interest 
in relation to this man and the manner in which his complaint 
was fabricated—perhaps at a subsequent stage of this narrative 
they may help to adorn the tale. 

As to "the case of Debhas, the Consular Agent, the facts are 
simply these: John Horndon, Esq., an English barrister at 
law, representing himself as the agent, trustee, and attorney 
in fact for the estate of Captain Joseph Dingwell, deceased, 
had been in Syria and at Constantinople endeavoring to settle 


44 


» 


said estate. He called at my Consulate early in August, 1874, 
to talk with ine about this man Debbas, with whom Captain 
Dingwell bad in bis lifetime bad very extensive business trans¬ 
actions. He denounced Debbas in my presence afterward at 
the hotel as a “ a swindler and a scoundrel.” He subsequently 
informed me be must then go back to England, but on bis 
return to Syria in the fall he should ask for a most rigid in¬ 
vestigation of Debbas in relation to the claims be held against 
him for said estate. After Mr. II.’s departure I then, entirely 
out of a spirit of kindness and fairness (he was my Consular 
Agent) wrote to Debbas in relation to this matter. ITe finally 
came to Beirut, and called to see me October 6, 1874. I then 
told him in a general way the suhject-malter of the converse 
tion with Horndon. He had a large parcel of papers and 
documents and account books with him relating to this case. 
The next day lie called again and wished me to examine his 
matters, and I took the case into consideration at his earnest 
request. In the evening by my appointment he called at the 
hotel and remained at least two hours. I then informed him 
that the case was large and complicated, involving many nice 
points of law; that unless he disclosed to me all the facts I 
could not undertake to give any opinion; that after he should 
disclose all the facts I should then have to make a most careful 
examination before coming to a legal determination, if I could 
at all; that the matter seemed to be of a very grave and impor¬ 
tant character, and would require no little time and labor to exam¬ 
ine. Debbas then voluntarily and freely offered to pay me well 
for all my trouble, examinations and opinion; said he had no 
money with him, but he would liberally compensate me. At 
these interviews was always a third party, and his testimony 
will settle Mr. Debbas. Not a word was said about removal 
from his office, nor of the value of his office or any other Con¬ 
sular Agency. The next day he was to call again—he both 
speaks and writes English well—but sent me the following 
note verbatim: and I never saw him again. 

“Beirut, 8th October, 1874. 
The Hon. Mr. Fisher, U S. Consul. 

My Dear Sir. I beg you will excuse my not coming to see you 
to-day, as it was understood, for I am unwell, but I herewith in¬ 
close to you copies of the agreements passed between me and the 
late Mr. Dingwell and with Mr. Horndon, which I have fulfilled 
since two years to the utmost point, and of course consider myself 
perfectly acquitted from all sorts of claim. 


0 


Begging you will take this subject into consideration, I remain, 
dear sir, yours truly, 

(Signed.) A. Debbas.” 

This note was simply a lie. He was not too unwell to have 
fallen in with Edward A. Van Dyck and my discharged Drago¬ 
mans, and to enter into their conspiracy to crush me, and that 
day and until the 14th October, seven days, he remained in 
Beirut, and then and there was concocted his calumnious state¬ 
ment sent under date of October 14th to the Legation at Con¬ 
stantinople and a copy to Washington. And in that statement 
he says: “I was honored with the service of the United States 
Government (as Consular Agent) on condition that my private 
affairs (business) should not enjoy American protection— i. e., 
judicial protection—and I was not allowed to use my official 
position for protecting my private concerns,” (business.) 

And yet upon this showing Baraczi states that “I intended to 
act as lawyer and judge in these cases.” The whole matter is 
a vile and wicked calumny fabricated by false, cunning, and 
malignant men. I had no jurisdiction over Debbas as a judge 
in these transactions and in this case of Horn don vs. him. It 
exceeded all my personal jurisdiction, and all I could do was 
to send the case to the Minister at Constantinople. See Stat¬ 
utes at Large, sections 4,088 and 4,107. Besides, these cases of 
Yenniand Debbas, (neither American citizens or under myjuris- 
diction,) were both purely notarial cases (if there are legiti¬ 
mately any such cases), and came within the just discretion of 
the Consul as prescribed in the last clause of section oil Con¬ 
sular Regulations, page 74. Further of Debbas hereafter, and 
I must postpone to next week the consideration of the remain¬ 
ing charges in this connection. 


LETTER Ho. Yin. 

THE CHARGES. 

8. I come now to the third charge, which Baraczi says is 
well founded, namely: that “ I really had certified a draft and 
the vouchers pertaining to it by Abd El Hour, Fakir, (£. e., 
Joseph Abd El Hour, one of my dismissed dragomans,) with¬ 
out selling them [it] to him.” 

This statement is simply absurd upon its face. What prob¬ 
ability is there that Mr. Abd El Hour would certify my draft 
without knowing his business, and making himself secure ? 



46 


It is a wonder that the conspirators, while they were about if r 
did not go the whole figure, and swear that T forged the cer¬ 
tification myself! 

The matter of certification of draft, by Mr. Abd El Xour wa» 
my “draft for transit to post of duty,” drawn as per form Xo. 
108, paragraph 367, Cons. Reg., and bore date July 20, 1874, 
Xo. 2, upon the Department, and certified the amount of cur¬ 
rent loss of exchange, as required by paragraph 355, same reg¬ 
ulations. Mr. Abd El Xour did not wish to cash the draft, 
and simply and only certified the current loss and rate of ex¬ 
change between Beirut and Xew York, according to law, as 

every Consul in the service of the Government has to have 
*/ * 

done for every draft he draws upon the Government, whether 
he makes sale to the merchant or some bank or banker. There 
was no wrong done—no thought of wrong— none could, be done. 
All insinuation to the contrary is misrepresentation and abuse 
of language for mischievous effect, and if Baraczi did not 
know this, he thereby exposes his own ignorance, and that he 
knew nothing of what he was reporting. If he had written 
that this charge also “reposed on the maliciousness of Dr. 
Van Dyck” he would then have told what he did know. 

It is worthy of note that this is the second draft which Sec- 
«/ 

retary Fish illegally cut down §103.98—allowing me only 
thirty days transit from Augusta, Ga'., to Beirut, instead of 
forty-nine days, (the law of Congress authorizing him to fix 
terms of transit for Ministers and Consuls to posts of duty 
not having passed Congress till June 11, 1874, twenty-one 
days after my departure to my post of duty from Washington, 
and was not published and promulgated as Consular Regula¬ 
tion until September 1,1874 ,ffty-three days after I had reached 
my post of duty.) The operation upon myself was, therefore, 
made retroactive and ex post facto, and clearly was illegal. 
The case was referred to the Law Examiner of the State De¬ 
partment, who decided in my favor , but Secretary Fish arbi¬ 
trarily overruled him, and to this day I have been unable to 
get this balance justly due me. 

4. The next charge, which Baraczi says is well founded, is 
that “I gravely compromised the Consular dignity in pro¬ 
posing to Mrs. Beauboucher a divorce without waiting for her . 
application, and justified her accusation by refusing to pay her 
back the deposited amount when she declared that she in¬ 
tended to withdraw her action against her husband.” 

This case of the divorce suit will make a chapter of itself, 
and one that once read will not be forgotten. I shall again 


47 


take it up. At present I propose to answer Baraczi with Ba- 
raczi, and cite from another part of his report as follows :—“I 
(that is Baraczi) explained the state of affairs to Mrs, Beau- 
boucher, and told her that our Consults conduct was entirely jus¬ 
tifiedr 

Now, let the reader put these two statements together which 
appear in the same document, and then say which is to be be¬ 
lieved, and what is to be thought of such barefaced and shame¬ 
less inconsistency. And upon such an exhibition as this, with¬ 
out granting me the slightest chance to be heard in defence, 
or explanation, or to know even the specific charge, I was 
summarily removed from my Consulate, my then only de¬ 
pendence for my family and self, six thousand miles from 
home. My chapter on this case will show I did not invite this 
lady to the Consulate; that she first called on me there with 
her cousin, Edward Portal is, Esq.,—afterwards with her own 
father and this same gentleman as interpreter and friend, and 
that I did not compromise the Consular dignity! 

5. The next charge which Baraczi says is well founded, is 
that “I kept the mare of A. Yenni without any intimation to 
pay the three-quarters which Yenni owned.” 

I am really humiliated at being compelled again to follow 
a report I never saw or heard of until I read it first in Wash- 
ington—a low, base, and vulgar accusation, as devoid of foun¬ 
dation as it is malicious and utterly groundless , and should not 
do so but for the fact that it has been thought worthv of the 
consideration of that high functionary of State, the Hon. Ham¬ 
ilton Fish. Now the simple facts of this matter are these: T 
had to have a horse to ride in the hot weather. I was trying in 
Beirut, and through a friend at Damascus, to get a good horse 
cheapest. I was recommended also to try Tripoli. On Au¬ 
gust 5 th, I wrote to Mr. A. Yenni whether I could get a horse 
there. August 7, 1874, he writes, “ delighted to send me his 
mare, three-fourths his and one-fourth a Maronite Bishop’s,” 
and “ you can keep her and pay as much as you like.” Au¬ 
gust 14th, “ the three-fourths which belong to me will be left 
to your use as much as you like,” &c. Mr. Samuel Jessup also 
writes about the mare August 7, 1874. All these letters be¬ 
fore me are not worth publishing in full. I wrote finally that 
he might send me the mare for trial, and if she suited, and a 
fair price could be agreed upon, I would keep her. The mare 
was sent with the express wish “ not to pay the servant anything.” 
On her reaching me I found she had a very aggravated galled 
back, very much inflamed, and could not be used, i. e., ridden. 


48 


t supposed it would be all right in a day or two, and had her 
well fed, doctored, and cared for. After two weeks she was 
no better, and I then put her in the care of a veterinary surgeon, 
who kept her three weeks, and could not heal the back, and 
returned her to me. In another week I returned her through 
George Yenni to his father, and made him pay me the sum 
of about $18.50, my actual expenditures for her care, sur¬ 
geon’s bill and keeping! I never rode her or used her once 
while she was in my possession. This is the whole case—noth¬ 
ing more, nothing less; and is it not a pretty story to incor¬ 
porate into a grave official document to be sent all the way 
from Syria to the Department of State, and then to be made 
a part of the ground for my removal from the Consulate of 
the United States at Beirut! The proof of every word of this 
cannot be questioned for a moment. The wonder is I was 
not charged with stealing the horse ! 

6. The next and last charge which Baraczi says is well 
founded, is that “ I had contracted so many debts since I came 
to Beirut that the apprehensions of my creditors as to my good 
will and capacity to pay them appear justified !” 

One thing is certain, all my debts were paid by me before I left 
there; but I now see and feel that during Baraczi,’s stay in 
Beirut special pains were taken to parade before him false ap¬ 
pearances and panoramic representations that are almost in¬ 
credible. The Van Dycks, Dr. Post, the dismissed Drago¬ 
mans, and all the friends they and the Tennis’ and Debbas 
could instigate to go upon this unholy crusade against me, day 
and night, (and many in the night that dared not by daylight,) 
appeared before him with ^complaints, untruths, false state¬ 
ments—in a sort of endless chain, and, for a while, cunning, 
malice, perjury and subornation of perjury held high carnival. 
Tow it was, indeed, that the “ Dodge letter ” came in and was 
to be verified, and no pains were spared to make its slander 
truth. Baraczi himself says that “ he had to stand a regular 
seige, and that the number of my creditors was infinite; that 
Dr. Van Dyck found out every creditor and sent him to me” 

The number of my creditors was infinite! And all this be¬ 
tween July 15th and October 15th, “for I behaved myself ?o 
well between that date and December 3d that no “ complaint 
was made against me ! ” Tow, if this matter had been placed 
before me at the time, I could have shown that I did not justly 
owe more than $<300 altogether in Beirut aside from one de¬ 
posit of $300 in the Beauboucher divorce case, and that only 
to five persons, with the exception of the Imperial Ottoman 


« 


49 


Bank, where, after October, I did all my business, and I know 
the bank people did not join in the Van Dyck panorama before 
Baraczi, nor in this shameful and outrageous calumny con¬ 
cocted by the conspirators and Baraczi, a word of which I 
never saw or had any knowledge of until I read it in this 
report. 

The report, too, of my extravagance was a wicked and ma¬ 
licious invention. It had no truth in it whatever. Without 
credit, without money, and without disposition, contrary to my 
whole life and nature, how could it he ? My predecessor, with 
horses and carriage, and four servants, and twice the expense- 
of myself, with hut two servants and no horse or carriage, was 
all right. It is a preposterous, miserable representation. 

Having thus disposed of the six specific charges brought 
against me, I propose now to take up the sneers and flings with 
which this dishonest, perfidious, unnaturalized Hungarian spy, 
and unquestionably bribed reporter, concludes his slanderous 
document: 

1. He taunts me with arriving at Beirut in great want of 
money, and mentions the fact that though the “ Dodge letter ” 
had already caused my credit and reputation to sutler, 
coolly adds, “ not to the extent to excuse the means I em¬ 
ployed to get money.” This is an infamous and gratuitous in¬ 
sinuation that I took unlawful and dishonorable means to get 
money, which I cast in the teeth of the perfidious scoundrel who 
conceived and uttered it. It is a malignant, unscrupulous 
falsehood, and had not a single particle of truth in it, and could 
never have been proven in Beirut. 

2. That I “ was pushed to such heavy expenses as necessi¬ 
tated extraordinary means to cover them, and that I tried to 
find these means by forcing my Dragomans to advance or pro¬ 
cure me money ; that when I had exhausted this source I tried 
to get new sums by enforcing my legal advice upon my Con¬ 
sular Agents ” 

All this is a most slanderous imagination and imputation, 
and upon its face plainly shows that it is prepared stuff, because 
no proof was at hand to sustain even the infamous charges 
made, and is sufficiently answered in the simple statement of 
facts which I have already given. Only two out of twelve 
Consular Agents could be procured or found to swear that “ I 
tried to get money out of them,” or to “ enforce my legal ad¬ 
vice upon them.” Singular that no one else, not one of the 
other ten, could be found, and that only three Dragomans out 


7 


50 


of not less than twenty would swear that I tried to force them 
•‘to advance or procure me money.” 

The only possible fair construction of what I did was that 
which daily transpires in the affairs of the ordinary business 
of men. I did seek pecuniary accommodations in an honora¬ 
ble way, such as my position and salary justified, all of which I 
honorably met according to the common mode of doing busi¬ 
ness at Beirut. There was nothing secret, covert, or dishonest, 
or in any possible way dishonorable. All I did was open as 
the day. "Was it dishonorable to ask Mr. Van Dyck if he 
. could loan me £100, or put me in the way of it, sixty or ninety 
days ? But I was surrounded by malignant enemies—secret, 
unsparing foes—men that I had never seen before, that had 
never seen me—missionaries and professing Christian men, too, 
but none the less determind to pervert, distort, and misrepre¬ 
sent every business act of mine into something disreputable, 
wrong and unlawful. Even Baraczi says “I was watched” by 
Van Dyck. “He observed him, his family, his official docu¬ 
ments, his private letters. He even read one of my private 
letters,” &c. There was nothing I could or did do that was 
not, in their eyes, an act of corruption. And hence we have 
in this conglomeration report of Baraczi, this mean, contempti 
ble, and malicious insinuation : 

3. “ That I spent $250 out of $300 which I received from 
Mrs. Beauboucher for the prosecution of her claim for a di¬ 
vorce from her husband, and only entered $50 on the Consular 
books, though I gave a Consular receipt to her for the whole 
amount.” 

Now, the simple fact of this case is, as I have stated, this 
lady, an utter stranger to me, whom I had never seen or 
heard of before, first sought me with her cousin, Edward 
Portalis, Esq., and opened the business of a divorce. On 
hearing her statement (she did not speak English) through 
Mr. Portalis, I immediately presented the case to the Legation 
and to the Department of State. At the second interview she 
was attended by her father, brother-in law, and cousin, who all 
urged that her divorce should be obtained. Her husband was 
then, as it was supposed, somewhere in the western world, and 
there would be considerable expense in obtaining some im¬ 
portant depositions, documents, translations, &c., which the case 
involved. She deposited with me $300. If it was not all 
entered in the books it was no fault of mine. My dispatches 
for advice and information caused unavoidable delay, and 
served to develop some striking views at the State Department 


51 


which will be detailed hereafter. Meanwhile the V an Dycks 
were busy with the Madam and a Mrs. Iiouri to stir her up 
against me, but in the end she and her friends were made to 
understand that Mr. Secretary'Fish had prevented her suit, and 
her money, less some small portion for expenses actually in¬ 
curred, not one cent for myself, was entirely refunded to her. 
Yet this man Baraczi, forgetting what he had told her him¬ 
self of my rectitude in the matter, has the impudence to parade 
this case again to my disparagement. 

4. “ Finally, that he (I) contracted so many debts as to be in 
everybody’s mouth, and make people loudly complain of him.” 

If Baraczi had scheduled all my debts we should then know 
whose “ everybody’s mouth ” w T as. I have already stated that 
at the very time this calumny was penned J did not owe in all 
Beirut over $600 besides the Beauboucher deposit, and this 
only to five or six people besides the bank; and if I had been 
undisturbed in my office I should in another quarter, or two at 
most, have paid it all. As it was, with all my troubles and dis¬ 
appointments, when I left Syria, with the exception of $400 
due the bank, secured by my plate, watch, jewelry, and other 
personal property, I did not, to my knowledge, owe any person 
there morally or legally a single dollar. If there were those 
who loudly complained of me they were instigated to do it by 
the vile conspirators and their tools, and paraded before Baraczi 
to produce the desired effect. From them I could expect nothing 
but loud complaints, and long, loud and false enough they were. 

5. “The above facts, and still more the readiness of the Van 
Dyck party ivho brought these and many other untrue reports to 
the knowledge of the public, have deprived Mr. Fisher of his 
reputation , and neither the American colony nor the Turkish 
authorities, nor the public, nor his Consular colleagues, want to 
have anything to do with him.” 

Will the reader again read, before proceeding further, the 
above paragraph ? What is said therein of the persistent in¬ 
trigues, machinations, and base slanders of the Van Dyck party 
against me confirms Mr. Bokefs letters , Achrnefs statement , and 
what could have been established by me by more than twenty 
of the best people in Beirut, and then does not begin to measure 
their malignity and calumny! But as to the effect of all these 
dishonest and malicious efforts upon my public or official stand¬ 
ing I could fill a vast volume. I can only say while it was 
most disastrous to me in some respects, it did not leave me 
entirely without friends or show of influence with those who 
stood apart and looked with amazement upon this shameful 


52 


spectacle of American meanness and missionary malignity! 
And even as it was, with all this formidable combination 
against me, it is only due to truth to say that before I left the 
Consulate, it was freely admitted that no Consul at Beirut had 
the influence that I had with the Governor and the local au¬ 
thorities. This was publicly conceded by the French, Italian, 
and Spanish Consuls. And it is an undoubted fact that the 
English Consul persisted in hostility to me through prejudices 
imbibed before my arrival in port. 

It will be seen upon a review of the abstract of Baraczi’s 
report already given, that when he commenced his search for 
gossip against me in Beirut he gathered up a mass of refuse 
which he afterwards digested and formulated into twelve dis- 
tinct accusations, which according to his information and repre¬ 
sentation were flying about the town. As these twelve charges 
are delightful topics for public contemplation and recollection 
I wish briefly to enumerate them again to show the kind of busi¬ 
ness in which these American missionaries and my Consulate 
Clerk were engaged, and in what charity, peace, and concord 
they carried themselves towards their Consul in those days. 
The matters of accusation reported were as follows: 

1. Dismissing Dragomans who refused to give me money 
and retaining a Dragoman who did procure me money. 

2. Demanding of four Consular Agents $500 each for retain¬ 
ing them in office, two of whom, Levi and Abela, paid; and 
two of whom, Yenni and Debbas, refused to pay. 

3. Promising to make one Gargour of Jerusalem a Drago¬ 
man if he would receipt for $500 and actually take only $240. 

4. That the Dragomans appointed by me paid me for their 
appointment. 

5. The certificate of the draft and vouchers attached by Mr. 
Abd El Your, a piece of dishonesty. 

6. The matter of Madam Beauboucher’s divorce, another 
piece of dishonesty. 

7. Selling a passport to Isaac Stuzenski dishonestly. . 

8. Charging Mr. Hulse dishonest fee for writing him, (not 
an American citizen,) an affidavit. 

9. Getting Yenni’s mare and offering to pa} 7 for her a price 
before witnesses on condition that I should receive the money 
back secretly. 

10. Buying a mare of Constantine Bey without any inten¬ 
tion of paying for her, except in vain promises. 

11. That I represented that Secretary Fish had told me as 


53 


my salary was small I must make it up by laying contributions 
on my subordinates. 

12. That my style of living was such as to make it impos¬ 
sible to live on my honest resources, and so plunge me into 
heavy debts. 

These were the delightful tales, “ work of love,” 44 the Mas¬ 
ter’s work,” which my enemies were rolling as a sweet morsel 
under their tongues. Baraczi then occupies about 20 pages of 
his report in elucidating this parcel of scandal and defamation, 
much of it absolutely prepostorous, and then goes on to say that 
numbers 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 and 11 in the above list 44 cannot be sub¬ 
stantiated.” If, then, this Hungarian judge and jury with his 
nomad Star-chamber court is to be believed, this cut down the 
gossip and scandal at one stroke, fifty per cent! Half of the 
charges fell at one blow ! As to the Consular Agent, Mr. Levi, 
I never wrote him to call on me and never saw him but about 
ten to fifteen minutes once, when he came to Beirut from 
Alexandretta on his way, very sick, to go to Cyprus, where he 
died two weeks after. He never paid me a cent in his life-time, 
nor afterwards to my knowledge. 

The Consular Agent, Mr. Abela, I never wrote to, to call on 
me and never mentioned to him a word in regard to money or 
his Agency in any shape, manner, or form, and never heard 
his name connected with my affairs until I first saw it in Ba- 
raczi’s report in Washington. Mr. Abela, who is the special 
friend of Hr. Van Dyck, knows the truth of this, and that any 
charge of money transactions between us was manufactured out 
of whole cloth, and is utterly and entirely false, is or did I ever 
write to Yenni to call on me. He came of his own accord 
with Jessup’s letter, already stated, and before I have done 1 
will show what sort of a man he is. As to Debbas, the fourth 
Consular Agent, I have shown how and for what purpose I 
wrote to him, and I will further show the character of this man 
in good time. 

Baraczi on his arrival at Beirut stated to me more specifi¬ 
cally that his principal object was to investigate the alleged 
outrage by Turkish soldiers near Latakia, and at the same 
time to make some examination into certain charges made 44 by 
certain missionaries, and Consular Clerk Van Dyck forwarded 
by them to the Legation of the United States at Constantinople 
and to the Department of State.” When he mentioned this 
latter subject to me I asked him at once for charges and spec¬ 
ifications, if any, against myself. He again said to me there 
were but three matters to which he would invite my attention, 


54 


and allowed me copies of a complaint by Debbas and one by 
Yenni, and asked in addition to these two, an explanation 
of the divorce suit of Madame Beauboucher. He distinctly 
stated to me then that they were “ a large number of other 
complaints by the Van Dycks and their co-operators ,” but would 
not say what they were. I asked him again to specify all, when 
he stated they were “ entirely frivolous and unworthy my at¬ 
tention, and he would not trouble me with them.” 

Here I conclude this portion of the painful narration by de¬ 
nying in the most emphatic and unqualified manner all these 
accusations so far as they may be construed to asperse my per¬ 
sonal character and honor, or becloud my official life and con¬ 
duct. I have sought in all possible ways, both while I re¬ 
mained in Syria, nearly twelve months after knowledge of my 
removal, and since my return home, to meet my accusers face 
to face and have a fair and impartial investigation by Referee, 
Arbitrators, the State Department, the Board of Missions, by 
Consular Court, but all in vain. I have proposed everything 
that occurred to me as likely to afford a proper hearing of this 
case, but so far without avail; and here and now I declare my 
readiness to meet these charges in any court of justice, before 
any Committee of Congress, in any church tribunal, (notwitlr- 
standing the disgraceful faux pas of an ecclesiastical court, 
as exemplified in the scandalous Talmage case,) or before any 
respectable and competent person as referee or arbitrator to 
hear, adjudge, and decide the whole case; and I ask that all 
my enemies, from Mr. Secretary Fish down to the lowest tool 
of the mission clique at Beirut, may be summoned, and that 
I may be permitted, with my witnesses and proofs, to meet 
them face to face; and then if I do not succeed in uncover¬ 
ing and laying bare one of the most infamous plots to ruin 
a man’s character and blast his prospects that has transpired 
in modern times, I will take all the consequences of failure 
without another word. And I do here and now denounce 
Rev. Dr. D. Stewart Dodge, Rev. Dr. C. Y. A. Van Dyck, 
Dr. George E. Post, and Edward A. Van Dyck, with A. 
Yenni, Abdo Debbas, the dismissed Dragomans, and their 
ever-pliant tool, Baraczi, as guilty of one of the most wanton, 
cruel, malignant and unprovoked conspiracies to defame and 
blacken a man’s name, character and good fame, and ever- 
whelm his family with distress and misery, that has ever been 
recorded; and I hold them up before the American people 
and the American churches for contemplation, as having 
proved by their conduct towards me from first to last un- 


55 


worthy the honor of the American name, or the approval of 
Christian men and women, or of the American churches. 

And I also charge upon Mr. Secretary Fish a gross mal¬ 
feasance in his office—the perversion and prostitution of his 
high official duty and functions—a violation of law, and a shame¬ 
ful neglect of my prerogatives and right, and of official honor 
and justice. 


LETTER No. IX. 

LETTER TO DR. JESSUP. 

Having disposed of the charges on which it is pretended 
and alleged I was removed, I go back now to other matters 
which may not be uninteresting to the American public and 
the American churches. Rev. Dr. Henry H. Jessup was 
chairman of the indignation meeting, and a few days after it 
was held he transmitted to me a copy of its proceedings. In 
reply to his communication I sent him a statement under date 
of October 5, 1874, of which the following is a copy: 

“ Dear Dr. Jessup : When I wrote you my hurried note of this 
morning, just as I had received yours and a very large mail of of¬ 
ficial and other letters, and was closing up six different dispatches 
to different departments of Government that I am compelled to 
write to every quarter, I was necessarily much annoyed to think 
that any of my fellow-citizens, and they all supposed to be “good 
men”—not politicians, not “ meddlesome in other men’s matters” 
or business—to think that such men, some of whom have never 
called on me, and all of whom know that I have been here hardly 
long enough to get one foot on shore, should hold a public meet¬ 
ing and attempt, at the instigation and through the intrigues of a 
discontented and disappointed insubordinate clerk in my office, who, 
with his father and friend, engineered the whole inception of this 
affair to place me in an unpleasant position —hors du combat —with 
the good opinion of my fellow-citizens, and then not promptly send 
to me the proceedings of their (so-called) public meeting. It 
seemed so extraordinary a proceeding, so unlike what I had a right 
to expect, especially from a body of clergymen—exhibited such a 
want of courtesy and foresight—that for the time being I was very 
greatly annoyed and disgusted. And this was felt the more by me, 
because it was but a repetition, it seemed to me, ot the memorial- 
protest gotten up, prepared, and slyly mailed to His Excellency the 
Minister of the United States at Constantinople on the i6th Sep¬ 
tember last, signed by Rev. Dr. Van Dyck, Edward A. Van Dyck, 
Consular clerk, Henry L. Van Dyck, and two other gentlemen, 
one of whom came and frankly told me all about it, and why. he 
signed it, &c., [Rev. Mr. Pinkerton’s name was not then attached,] 




and why he has since withdrawn his name therefrom. Of course,. 
I thought Rev. Dr. Van Dyck would not stoop to do such a thing, 
but I said nothing, and waited to hear from him, and it was not 
until 2 o'clock P. M. of the 21st September that Dr. Van Dyck 
finally did send me a copy of said protest; and when I read it I 
could but think if there had been any more Van Dycks here, they 
too, would have signed it, and pocketed it; and when I thought 
of this I must confess I could but laugh ! And then I thought fur¬ 
ther, “ Well, if the American resident gentlemen in all Syria are 
going to hold an indignation meeting against my changing my own 
Dragomans, and remonstrate against this simple act of mine, surely 
they will, on reflection, do me the justice and favor to invite me to 
participate in their deliberations—certainly not condemn me with¬ 
out a hearing.” I did think, too hurriedly perhaps, that not to 
give me a hearing would be neither American nor Christian-like, 
and awaited events. 

I had also been informed by a gentleman who was present at 
the meeting of the 1st instant, that, as he understood it, a sub¬ 
committee, with the secretary of the meeting, Mr. Dale, Jr., was 
appointed, and would call on me on the 2d instant in relation 
thereto ; but no one has come ne-.r me on this business, and your 
private note and a copy of the proceedings of this meeting, received 
this morning, is the first I have seen or heard, except orally, of the 
proceedings, except as above stated. 

Now, I ask you as a gentleman if you think such proceedings are 
proper towards myself either as an American citizen, or in my of¬ 
ficial relation as the Consular authority of the United States Gov¬ 
ernment here? Is that the right way to welcome me in my official 
relations, whether I have made a mistake in certain official changes 
which I have thought the best interests of my Consular duty called 
upon me to make, and which I deemed the public service of my 
country demanded ? I can have no possible wish to defy public 
opinion—to come into collision with right and justice—to outrage 
in any possible way the feelings of any man, much less that of my 
own countrymen, nor to do the slightest injustice to any one. 
That would be entirely contrary to my nature and inclination, and 
would be a violation of my sworn duty. Nor was I aware that I 
had to consult my disappointed subordinate, and that if I did not 
consult him I should bring down upon myself the animadversion 
of any of my fellow-citizens—certainly not the missionaries, who 
are supposed not to be specially interested in any but their own 
special work. Possibly I mistake, but it had not occurred to me 
that by simply exercising a clear prerogative of my office, which is 
now, I see, conceded by most of these men, I would thereby lay 
myself open to such criticism and animadversion as I haVe heard 
in connection with this matter over and over again. 

•I will now add, Mr. Tabet I know has alwavs been a warm 
friend of America—of all Americans; stands high both at Wash- 



57 


ington and with the minister at Constantinople, and so far as I can 
learn, his quarrel with Mr. Hay was a personal one, not of his 
(Tabet’s) seeking. Indeed Mr. Hay had, by express orders from 
Washington and Constantinople, to reinstate and apologize to Mr. 
Tabet in relation to his business affairs, or what was tatamount to 
that. That Mr. Tabet may be a keen, sharp, litigious man, may 
be true ; but one thing is certain, no business of yours or that of 
any other American can possibly suffer for want of attention by 
me, either from him or any other man. No complaint of this 
kind will ever be made in this relation, justly, about me. He is a 
man who has well served the United States as Dragoman six¬ 
teen years or more, and I do not fear his ever doing anything 
prejudicial to American interest, for that under no circumstances 
would be allowed. 

As to Mr. Khouri, he does not speak the English language, and 
is not to be compared as a gentleman in standing, socially, politi¬ 
cally, and as to business qualifications, with Mr. Joseph Ouardy. 
Besides, he has made personal remarks about myself that are both 
untrue and contemptible. He also undertook to retain in his hands 
a paper which Mr. Van Dyck had been ordered by the Department 
of State months ago, before I came here, to recall and cancel, 
and had not done it, (though Mr. Van Dyck had recalled and can¬ 
celed other like papers in the hands of the cavasses of the Con¬ 
sulate,) which paper had been given him by my predecessor in 
direct violation of Article V of the Treaty of 1830, and which paper 
I had finally to send my head Cavass with a positive order to pro¬ 
cure the delivery of, or Mr. Khouri would probably be very sorry 
for not obeying that order. After a little hesitation he acted the 
part of wisdom and delivered the said paper. 

And as to Mr. Joseph Abd El Nour, if it is desired to compare 
him with Dr. Selim Friege, a gentleman who speaks and writes 
good English, and is of high commercial, social, and political 
standing. a*s well as a graduate of the American College here , I 
simply have not one word to say. I have not acted hastily, but 
after careful examination and deliberation, and knowing it was in 
the best interest of the public service in more ways than one, that 
I should make these changes. If I have erred in discretion and 
judgment, I am open to conviction, but not by secret meetings and 
influences, or intimidation, and where I neither have an opportunity 
to be seen and heard, nor to counsel in a friendly way with those 
of my fellow-citizens who honestly differ with me in opinion. 

These remarks are not personal to anyone, certainly not to your¬ 
self or any one in particular, except the subordinate in my office ; 
who, I think, had better have consulted with his superior officer (as 
he has twice already been ordered to do in other matters by the 
Department of State) before taking the steps he has done towards 
that superior officer, and especially if he had an honest conviction 
that he was doing right in instigating this whole proceeding with 

8 


58 


his father and others, secretly or otherwise. Nor have I the slightest 
feeling about this matter except in that relation. If those men 
were honest about this matter, why have I not been consulted? 
Why have I heard of his frequent and incessant work, remarks, 
inuendoes in this behalf? It may be to his interest to pi'otest as a 
citizen against my official acts—to act as a spy and informer of all 
my official business—to get up secret protests and public meetings 
against my appointments, and to work secretly against my recom¬ 
mendations—but I much mistake if the Government of the United 
States (the Department of State) keeps him or any one else in 
subordinate or any official position for such purpose. Nor do I 
think the Government of the United States will tolerate any such 
proceedings after the instructions received by me from the Minister 
Resident at Constantinople, and which I promulgated by his ex¬ 
press orders recently in one of my printed notifications ; nor was 
I sent here to be governed by any but the purest motives, and to 
do justice in all my public duties, and to every one of my fellow- 
citizens and fellow-men to the best of my ability under the oath 
and official obligations upon me. 

I am very truly and respectfully yours, &c., 

George S. Fisher.” 


LIFE IN JAPAN. 

As the “ Dodge letter” undoubtedly had much to do in the 
hands of the missionaries in creating new embarrassments for 
me, I wish to say something here in reference to that matter. 
Baraczi alludes in his Report to Dr. Dodge as a missionary 
in Japan. This was not the fact. He is a missionary to Syria 
and Treasurer of the Syrian Protestant College. He is the 
son of a very wealthy gentleman in Hew York city, and was, 
of course, intimately acquainted with Dr. Post, who sprung 
from the same place. In his peregrinations round the world 
this perambulating clergyman chanced to light upon the Japan 
Islands, where lie sojourned for a time, doubtless with a view 
of acquiring such useful information in those distant regions 
as might prove profitable to his studies when he should settle 
down in Beirut to the sober business of his chosen profession. 
In his pursuit after knowledge, not, one would judge, under 
very great difficulties ins this case, he fortunately or unfortu¬ 
nately fell in with Mrs. Hepburn, the wife of a missionary 
physician, and one of the very best of men , who has been for 
many years doing real Christian and philanthropic work in 
China and Japan. Mrs. Hepburn always treated us person¬ 
ally with great respect and apparent kindness, both in manner 
and speech, often breaking bread with us in the most familiar 
manner, though we were often, even then, pained by hearing 


59 


of unkind inn undoes, and remarks that had been made by her 
concerning us in matters which did not concern her, in which 
her husband and all the other missionaries there knew that 
not a shadow of blame could be attached to us. Dr. Hepburn 
assured us that he had been utterly unable to prevent the very 
same occurrences in his own experiences in Japan. Unhap¬ 
pily, Mrs. II. was one of those persons who give very free 
range to imaginings of evil where none exists, and speak as 
freely as they think, without any reflection as to what the con¬ 
sequences may he. The most charitable view in which her 
conduct can be placed, is, that after our return to America her 
evil surmisings took the form of realities in her mind, causing 
her busy tongue naturally to be let loose to anybody who 
could be found willing to yield a listening ear. Such an ear 
she found on the head of Rev. Dr. Dodge ! She consequently 
poured into his mind the contents of his letter to Dr. Post. 
We have already seen something of the nature of that gossip, 
though not all! 

And now another question arises: How came Dr. Dodge in 
Japan just about that time ? Was he sent there for the ex¬ 
press purpose of raking over the ashes of many years before 
to see what scandal he might gather up against me ? It looks 

verv much like it. For if this information had come to him 
* 

as a casual visitor, leisurely traveling around the world, how 
should he know anything of my appointment to the Consulate 
at Beirut, and how should lie at once retail the lady’s gossip 
in a formal communication to Dr. Post, in order that the ex¬ 
cellent missionaries at Beirut, and in all Syria, might he put 
upon their guard against me ? And was it not the beautiful 
ancl exalted part of a scandal-monger that this reverend gen¬ 
tleman acted to perfection ? It really seems upon the face of 
it as though the whole thing was a deliberate and wanton plot 
to kill me oft* if possible, even before my confirmation by the 
Senate ! 

Another circumstance may be noted here, namely: that 
Dr. Dodge seems to have been quite content with the story of 
this one witness, as he does not appear to have obtained any 
confirmation of her tales from any other person in Japan. 

And now, in reply to this idle and mischievous gossip of an 
indiscreet and trifling woman, I have to state that on one oc¬ 
casion a very wealthy and influential gentleman having re¬ 
ceived a letter from his son, also a missionary in Syria, sug¬ 
gesting that my Consular life in Japan was not satisfactory, 
took the pains to call on Secretary Fish to ascertain if this was 


60 


true; and he then and there learned that “ nothing whatever 
against my record” of more than five years in that country 
could be found. “ Col. Fisher’s Consular service in Japan 
was eminently satisfactory. Nothing was known against him 
of record there.” In 1866 Mr. Chew, then chief of the Con¬ 
sular Bureau, freely declared, “ Col. Fisher is one of our best 
Consuls. He ought not to be spared the service.” I had, 
however, to give way to make room for one of the generals 
discharged after the war, and not for any cause whatever dis¬ 
paraging to myself. There is every reason to believe that the 
son of the gentleman above referred to was informed of the 
result of the said inquiry at the State Department, when he 
affected not to listen, but did give credence to the infamous 
libels reported by his dearest colleague connected with the 
Dodge correspondence, and first published by him in Beirut. 
It was in that interview also that Mr. Secretary Fish stated to 
the wealthy gentleman that he, Fish, in the Senate had de¬ 
feated the bill to pay me in part for the loss of my law library 
in Japan, although postmasters, paymasters, quartermasters, 
and others in the public service, are frequently reimbursed for 
similar losses; and so it appears that this man has been my 
evil genius from first to last, and has really proved the instru¬ 
ment of untold misery to myself and family. 

But in addition to the above testimony as to my standing in 
Japan, I will here insert a copy of a letter written by Mrs. 
Fisher to Dr. George E. Post under date of December ‘20, 
1874, which is as follows: 

“Dear Sir: I have forborne to say anything to you about the 
1 Dodge letter’ until I am convinced that further forbearance 
ceases to be a virtue, and it is time that a gleam of justice be per¬ 
mitted to show the base slanders therein contained in their true 
light. In common law, an accused person is supposed to be inno¬ 
cent until proven guilty. You probably well knew before the re¬ 
ceipt of that letter that Colonel Fisher was a professed follower of 
the same Lord and Master to whose service you profess to have de¬ 
voted your life and talents. Should not that sacred consecration of 
all your acts to His glory have caused you to lay aside that letter 
(the contents of which you could not but suspect might be the re¬ 
tailing of the merest slanderous gossip) until you should have had 
an opportunity of using your own judgment after some acquaintance 
with your fellow-Christian, just come (or coming) among you, as to 
the judiciousness of spreading the contents of the same through 
this community? The kind Christian missionary sister who was 
Mr. Dodge’s informant against us in Japan forgot to tell him that 


61 


notwithstanding <K our elegant entertainments” there—which, by 
the way, no one enjoyed more heartily than she did herself—we 
found time and means to minister largely to the necessities of the 
poor. She well knew that on one occasion, by untoward events, an 
American lady was in great distress and straits in Japan ; that my 
husband, after providing for her every necessary comfort, also 
paid her passage home out of his own pocket; also, that a poor, 
aged seaman, who had served fourteen years at one time in our 
Navy, but had long retired from the service and was in Japan in 
consumption, was by us provided with a comfortable room, and a 
nurse to attend upon him ; that I sent him daily all his food from 
our own table for many months; that I visited him every day, and, 
as he was a man of great intelligence, took much pains to furnish 
him with instructive reading matter, daily reading to him from the 
Word of God and smoothing away his doubts and fears, till I had 
the joy of seeing him make a public profession of his faith in 
Christ, and he was baptised and received the holy communion in 
our own dining-room, which was very large, where that sacred ser¬ 
vice was held monthly for years, Mr. Dodge’s informant being 
present and always participating in the same ; that when this same 
aged seaman desired to make his will and leave all the money he 
possessed (a few hundred dollars) to my children, as a token of his 
love and gratitude to us, my husband refused to allow him to do so, 
and persuaded him to leave what he had to the missionary cause 
there, which he did ; that annually Colonel Fisher paid the sum of 
$50 gold into Dr. Hepburn’s own hands as his contribution to that 
same cause ; that it was wholly through my father’s and husband’s 
influence and aid that the first Christian church was established in 
Japan; and that, after it had been established, the whole expense of 
the same was borne entirely by my husband as long as we remained 
in Japan ; that we entertained liberally and cordially many strangers 
who came to Japan in search of health. 

One day my husband heard there was a very sick American gen¬ 
tleman on board the Hong Kong steamer, just arrived, and that 
several boats from various mercantile houses had been out to the 
steamer, and, although the gentleman was well known to some of 
them, having been connected for years in business with one of these 
houses, yet, on account of his serious illness, no one had invited 
him on shore. My husband then went out to him (although we had 
at the time two ladies, two children and nurse from Shanghai with 
us, who had been our guests for several weeks) and tendered him 
the hospitalities of our home, which he gladly accepted. He was a 
perfect stranger to us, was too ill even to sit at our table; but we 
nursed him carefully and faithfully for six weeks, and then carried 
him out to his burial from our own house, and Mr. Dodge’s inform¬ 
ant was present at the funeral service in that same dining-room. 
You will say, of course, that gentleman’s family made us some 
handsome present for so much kindness. We did not do it for, or 


62 


expect any reward, and received none except that which is far 
brighter and dearer than ‘silver and gold *—the everlasting grati¬ 
tude of the widow and fatherless children. The cane which Cob 
Fisher now carries was presented to him by this gentleman on his 
death bed. All this, and a great deal more of the same sort, Mr. 
Dodge’s informant did not tell. 

Now, Dr. Post, in the name of justice, I demand that you show 
me this letter that you so unhesitatingly showed to our bitter enemy 
without cause, the Rev. Dr. Van Dyck, and so many others of your 
missionary brethren, that I may know if I have been informed 
rightly of all the calumnious statements therein contained. The 
Van Dycks, father and sons, have done their utmost to injure our 
reputation and character in every possible way in this community. 
They have carefully informed the native merchants in the Bazar that 
Col. Fisher is a very poor man, owns no property in America, has 
never been confirmed in this office, and in a very short time will be 
obliged to leave, wherefore they must not sell him anything unless 
the money is paid down before delivery, as when he is obliged to 
leave he will be wholly unable to pay them, and they will lose all. 
Business that has been done in the most upright and honest manner 
by him as Consul in his office has been most wickedly perverted 
and ingeniously reported against him. Private letters have been 
abstracted from his desk concerning a most simple business transac¬ 
tion before our arrival here, and completely perverted so that the 
only truth in the whole relation by the Van Dycks was the man’s 
name, “ Ruggles.” Will you do me the favor to call your rever- 
erend colleague’s attention to the words of the Almighty as con¬ 
tained in Deut., 27th chapter, 19th verse: ‘Cursed be he that 
pervereth the judgment of the stranger;’ and on the subject of 
false witnesses, the 19th chapter, 16-19th verses inclusive. Then 
read the solemn words of our blessed Lord Jesus in the 25th chap¬ 
ter of Matthew, from the 48th verse to the end of the chapter : ‘ I 
was a stranger, and ye took me in,’ &c. My judgment of the Rev. 
Dr. Van Dyck is in exact accord with the 7th chapter of Matthew. 
Please read it. ‘To the law and to the testimony.’ This is the 
touchstone of truth . I do not wonder that the Rev. Doctor expe¬ 
rienced so much difficulty in delivering his discourse upon ‘ Truth ’ 
to which I listened a few Sundays ago. A few days ago Dr. Van 
Dyck asserted to Mr. Baraczi that Rev. Mr. Bird was preparing a 
sworn statement of a conversation between himself and the Con¬ 
sul to be used against Mr. Fisher. I immediately wrote a note to 
Mrs. Bird, asking her to be kind enough to tell me what this 
meant, &c. Mr. Bird himself answered the note most kindly, tell¬ 
ing me that he never hau been asked for any such statement; that 
he repeated a part of a conversation to Mr. Calhoun ; that the re¬ 
marks he did make, instead of being adverse to Mr Fisher, were 
quite the reverse , &c. How does this compare with Dr. Van Dyck’s 
ideas of truth ? 


It is not our duty any longer to submit quietly to all the calum¬ 
nies that have been set afloat against us here by the missionary ele¬ 
ment of Beirut, and it is high time they were either proven against 
us or apologized for and as carefully denied as they have been in¬ 
dustriously circulated. Trusting I shall soon be favored with the 
reading of that most remarkable letter of Mr. Dodge’s, I remain, 
most respectfully, 

Yours, &c., 

(Signed) Martha C. M. Fisher.” 

The reply to this letter will be given in my next. 


LETTER No. X. 

LETTER OF DR. POST. 

The following is the reply of Dr. George E. Post, Reverend 
as well as M. D., to the letter of Mrs. Fisher: 

“ Beirut, December 22, 1874. 

Dear Mrs. Fisher: 

I have read your letter twice and given close attention to alt 
which you have said. What you have told me of your deeds in 
Japan accords with my estimate of the kindness of your heart, a 
quality in which I am not slow to believe your husband fully shares. 
I shall certainly carry out your request (a pencil memorandum at 
the bottom of her letter to show it to all those who had read the 
Dodge letter) to show your letter to all whom you intimated you 
wished to see it. 

Since the conversation which I held with you all in Abeih, and in 
which I stated that I did not wish to talk over these subjects any 
further, I have studiusly avoided any allusion to them, and I am 
satisfied that this course is the best for all concerned. Hoping that 
you will believe that lam prompted by sentiments of sincere regard 
for your happiness, believe me 
Truly yours, 

(Signed) George E. Post.” 

Mrs. Fisher, not at all satisfied with this evasive note, and 
having reason to know that on more than one occasion Dr. 
Post had not studiously avoided any allusion to the “ Dodge 
letter,” determined to see the Doctor in person, and on the 
next day she went to the college and . had a personal interview 
with him, during which she told him she was not satisfied 
with his cold, and indifferent reply to her appeal; that he 
well knew that she did not intend or desire a parade of the acts 



64 


of kindness, &c., which she had been driven to mention only as 
counter statements to the malignant slanders that had been re¬ 
peated to her as contained in the notorious “Dodge letter,” 
and earnestly urged him to permit her to read it, since, from 
time to time, many things purporting to be quotations from 
that letter had reached her, and she wished to know positively 
the truth or falsity of what she had heard. She further earn¬ 
estly insisted that it had now become his solemn duty r after we 
had so much undoubted proof of its free circulation in the 
community, to let her read it. Dr. Post thereupon told her 
positively that it was no longer in his power to show her Mr. 
Dodge’s letter, as he no longer had it, having concluded “ it 
was much better to destroy it than keep it in his possession any 
longer.” 

What was our amazement at the subsequent facts which came 
to light may, perhaps, be imagined, though we had begun to 
be not much amazed at anything we heard, especially in this 
direction, in Syria. Mr. Baraczi had come to Beirut early in 
December. The night before he left to go to Latakia, while 
dining at our table, and speaking of Dr. Post, he remarked 
that he had “that day seen the celebrated ‘Dodge letter.’” 
This was but one or two days after the interview in which Dr. 
Post had assured Mrs. Fisher that he had destroyed it. My 
wife at once exclaimed, “ Mr. Baraczi, who showed you that 
letter V 1 He replied it was Dr. George E. Post, in person, who 
had shown it to him. “ Are you sure, quite sure, it was Dr. 
Post, in person, who showed you that letter?” asked my wife. 
“ Perfectly so; no one else, I assure you,” was his immediate 
reply. lie then continued : “ I told the Doctor I had heard so 
much about that letter I should like to see it, and in a few 
minutes he handed it to me.” AY e then questioned him par¬ 
ticularly and closely about its contents, so far as we had heard, 
and he not onlv confirmed what we had been told of its con- 
tents; but he related several additional items that we had never 
heard before. 

To lie or deceive for the church, or for the brotherhood, in 
the Fourth Century, was not considered a sin, though a differ¬ 
ent rule is supposed to prevail among Christain men and women 
in this Nineteenth Century. Now, what must be thought of 
the perfidy, duplicity, deceit, and undoubted falsehood of this 
pure and holy man of God, missionary to the Mohammedans 
of Turkey of the Cross of Christ ? And this was the man who 
first received and circulated the slanders and calumny of this 
infamous letter, and, in conjunction with his special colleague, 


65 


the Bev. Dr. Van Dyck, father of Consular Clerk Van Dyck, 
prepared and circulated the same letter with a special manifesto 
attached, that was, if possible, even more infamous than the letter 
itself; and this before our arrival at Beirut—when we were on 
the sea. 

I forbear all further comment on the spectacle here pre¬ 
sented, w r ell knowing that a just and discriminating public will 
measure the depth and liiglit of such sanctimonious hypoc- 
racy 

EDWARD A. VAN DYCK. 

Having given some account of the “ Dodge letter ” and of 
the men who hastened to use it “where it would do the most 
good,” to spread its calumnies in Beirut, let us take a brief 
view 7 of the Consular Clerk, Edward A Van Dyck, a young 
man 28 or 30 years of age at the time I knew him, by blood 
an Amsrican-Anglo-Syrian, by birth a Syrian, with the worst 
qualities of both countries—arrogant, vicious, unprincipled, 
morose, cunning, hesitating at nothing to compass bis object, 
and readily resorting to any means by which to indict an injury 
on another and gratify his ow r n seldsli and malicious nature. 
Baraczi in his report relates that after the departure of Mr. 
Har “young Van Dyck tried to get the appointment of Con¬ 
sul to Swatow, China,” wdiich is, I must conclude, a mistake 
he w T as adroitly and purposely led into by the duplicity and 
chicanery of the Van Dycks. Edward A. Van Dyck and Dr. 
Van Dyck wanted Edward made Consul at Beirut, especially 
when they knew Hay could not be reinstated, and had been 
tendered the appointment of Consul to Swatow— an appoint¬ 
ment he knew nothing of until it was tendered him by Secretary 
Fish. Afterwards, and after my arrival, when it was known 
at Beirut that Mr. Hay declined that office, then it was that 
Edward A. Van Dyck first thought of it. 

From the date of Mr. Hay’s departure to the date of my 
arrival at Beirut Van Dyck was acting Consul, and it was 
after the receipt of the “Dodge letter” when he told Ach- 
met “please God he would soon be Consul;” and the 
sagacious Baraczi supposes that in expectation of liis being 
made Consul somewhere, at least, he was rendered “ somewhat 
haughty and looked down upon his official business from a 
higher standpoint of his anticipated consulship, if not at Beirut 
somewhere else.” That while he was acting Consul at Beirut 
he not only never did anything to oblige United States citizens, 
“ but in several cases acted directly against their interests; ” 


9 


66 


and then lie goes on to cite examples of this, and says that “on 
account of a personal quarrel with Mr. Moussa Friege, in whose 
house the Consulate office formerly was, Van Dyck never 
wanted to protect the interests of the American firm of Messrs. 
Fabbri & Chauncey, of Xew York, which w T as represented at 
Beirut by Mr. Freige; that he refused to recognize Mr. 
Habeeb Xaggiar as an American citizen, although the latter pro¬ 
duced the most undoubted evidence of liis naturalization; that 
out of antipathy to Mr. Ayoub Tabet he advised the Turkish 
authorities to pay no attention to what the Consul (Mr. Fisher) 
would do, and this advice was given, although he knew Mr. 
Tabet is partner of Mr. Nichols of Xew York; and that this 
course of Van Dyck caused serious trouble at the Legation .” And 
further, while Baraczi was in my company he frequently spoke 
to me of Van Dyck, and said that “ he had lied to him (Baraczi) 
over and over again ” about his superior officer (meaning my¬ 
self), and he asked me how I could tolerate “such a fellow” 
in the office, and then told me that one day he asked Van 
Dyck “ if he was not afraid of being turned out of office for 
his insubordination and open hostility to Consul Fisher.” “ Oh 
no,” replied Van Dyck, “I have no fears of that; Mr. William 
E. Dodge, of Xew York, will take care of me! ” 

On one occasion after he had shown great discourtesy to an 
American gentleman arriving in Beirut, and to two American 
missionary ladies returning to Egypt after a short residence in 
the shades of Lebanon, the matter became a subject of con¬ 
versation. Mrs. Fisher said to a reverend gentleman missionary 
(Dr. Jessup) present, “ How much better off would you mission¬ 
aries be with Edward A. Van Dyck for your Consul instead of 
my husband?” “Is that what your people mean by the way 
we are being treated.-” The gentleman then quite warmly 
protested with considerable vehemence, “ Oh, Madam, we do 
not wish him to have that position! Edward has always been 
a great grief to us—but—but we all feel like fathers to him.” 
This denial, however, in the light of all the facts must lie taken 
with many grains of allowance. 

The truth is, the conspirators against me had two strings to 
pull. They were determined if possible to reinstate Mr. Hay, 
and if not, then to have Van Dyck promoted from his Con¬ 
sular clerkship to Consul. This was the design of the Van 
Dycks and the College influence from the beginning to the 
end; and it is just as Mr. Boker said in his letter to me of 
October 13,1874, and the influences to secure this commenced 


G 7 


before my arrival at Beirut, and they did not mean to be 
defeated. 

Instance after instance of this young man’s insolence and 
rudeness to me not only, but to American travelers, and in 
numerous cases to ladies, could be cited, but I forbear. I bad 
reported him in some sense again and again to the Legation 
and to the State Department without any attention from the 
latter, and after my successor arrived at the Consulate I filed 
formal charges against him, as follows: 

“Beirut, Syria, December 22, 1875. 

Hon. John T. Edgar, 

Consul of the United States, Beirut. 

Sir : Hereunder you will please receive sixteen charges and speci¬ 
fications in brief of insubordination, violations of law and of Con¬ 
sular Rules and Regulations, by Edward A. Van Dyck, Consular 
Clerk of the United States, Beirut Consulate, and I respectfully 
ask that you transmit a copy of the same through the Consulate 
General to the Legation of the United States at Constantinople 
and to the Department of State, Washington, D. C. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Geo. S. Fisher, late Consul .” 

1st. In being guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer of the 
United States and a gentleman in and out of office hours. 

2d. In that he never gave his superior officer, the Consul of the 
United States, the slightest token voluntarily of respect, kindness, 
or official attention on his arrival, July 7, 1874. 

3d. That he secretly conspired mid instigated opposition to and 
signed a “memorial” or protest against his superior officer, the 
Consul of the United States, and against his official right, preroga¬ 
tive, and privilege of office, contrary to rules and regulations 
and good order and discipline, on or about the 7th to the 16th 
September, 1874, sent to the United States Legation at Constanti¬ 
nople. 

4th. That he instigated, engineered, attended, and managed, in 
connection with his father and Dr. George E. Post, a public meet¬ 
ing of so-called Americans of all Syria, October 1, 1874, for the 
express and only purpose of protesting and remonstrating against 
his superior officer, and in defiance of and insubordination to his 
official right, duty, and prerogative of office. 

5th. That he asked leave of absence—a conge of the Department 
of State—contrary to law and Consular regulation, and in insubor¬ 
dination to and defiance of his superior officer, without the Con¬ 
sul’s knowledge, and when he knew he was violating Consular au¬ 
thority and rules and regulations of law. 

6th. That he formed a conspiracy with other parties, known an^ 
unknown by name in Beirut, in the months of July, August, Sep 


68 


tember and October, 1874, and contrary to law, and in defiance of 
subordination to his superior officer slandered, maligned, and 
libelled his name, character, and reputation as a citizen and officer 
of the United States; and this without cause, provocation, or 
foundation either in law or in fact, and contrary to the statute and 
the peace and good order of government, either at home or abroad. 

7th. That he has misrepresented ex-Consul J. Baldwin Hay as 
well as myself while in the service by sundry communications to 
the Legation of the United States at Constantinople and the De¬ 
partment of State at Washington, with the purpose and intent of 
injuring the official relations we respectively held therein, untruly 
and in derogation and insubordination of all official courtesy, pro¬ 
priety, and justice. 

8th. That he instigated and influenced by gross misrepresenta¬ 
tions and insubordination, the English and Italian Consuls and the 
Turkish Governor, Ibrahim Pasha, to write prejudicial letters to 
their superior officers in Constantinople against my name, character, 
and reputation, which'Tetters were knowingly false, defamatory, 
and libelous of his superior officer and contrary to law, good order 
and official subordination, and known to the late Minister of the 
United States at the Sublime Porte, Mr. Boker, and to the Secretary 
of the Department of State, Mr. Fish. 

9th. That he conspired with discharged Dragomans and others 
in Beirut disreputably and libelously to damage the credit, charac¬ 
ter, good name and fame of his superior officer in his official capacity 
and as a citizen of the United States, with the intent, purpose, 
and expectation of driving him from his office. 

10th. That he is guilty of secret maclinations and intrigues, con¬ 
spiracy, and subornation of perjury with one Antonio Yenni and 
Abdo Debbas, and the discharged Dragoman’s Abd El Nour, 
Khouri and Saad Shucair, and induced the said Yenni and Debbas 
to make statements that he knew were false, malicious and libelous 
against his superior officer, and that he co-operated with them 
to bring into disrepute his superior officer, knowing the falsehood 
and perjury of the same. 

nth. That he suborned witnesses to commit perjury, knowing it 
to be such, and induced Madame Emma Beauboucher and Con¬ 
stantine Bey to make statements, accusations, or complaints against 
his superior officer, knowing the same to be untrue, frivolous, 
libelous and insubordinate, as well as scandalous and contrary to 
good conscience, peace, justice, law and order. 

12th. That he conspired with one Morel Effendi, Private Secre¬ 
tary of his Excellency the Governor-General of Lebanon, Rustem 
Pasha, and scandalously, falsely, maliciously, and wickedly to him 
made reports against the name, character, good standing and repu¬ 
tation of his superior officer, which were written to and used in 
Constantinople in regard to the business of Ayoub Tabet and 
Habeeb Naggiar, the latter a naturalized citizen of the United States, 


to bring into disrepute and dishonor his superior office^, and in posi¬ 
tive insubordination thereto. 

13th, That he conspired with the local Ottoman authorities in 
Beirut to defeat all recognition of his superior officer and his au¬ 
thority as Consul, and secretly to deny the right of naturalization 
of Mr. Habeeb Naggair, who had his certificate of naturalization 
in a United States court; also a passport from the Department of 
State at Washington ; and this in violation of his duty and of law, 
and in insubordination to his superior officer. 

14th. That he has been guilty of repeated and notorious incivili¬ 
ties and discourtesies to American residents of Beirut, and to num¬ 
bers of American sojourners and travelers, the same being deroga¬ 
tory to the good name of the public service of the Government of 
the United States and its Consular service in Turkey. 

15th. That he vised a passport in violation of law and Consular 
rules and regulations, knowing it to be such, the evidence of which 
is on file in the Department of State. 

16th. That he has violated Consular correspondence addressed 
to his superior officer, and without his knowledge or consent muti¬ 
lated the same, and mutilated confidential and official records dis¬ 
respectful of and in insubordination to his superior officer; also 
disclosed matters of information from the Consular court records 
contrary to rules and regulations and proper subordination as an 
officer of such court. 

George S. Fisher, 

Late Consul of United States , Beirut . 

These formulated charges I pressed for a hearing before the 
Department of State, and my case against the Vim Dycks in 
the Consulate Court at Beirut after my successor had taken 
charge of the Consulate until February, 1876; but it was all 
in vain. Mr. Consul Edgar was never without some pre¬ 
text of postponement or excuse for delay. Indeed, all my de¬ 
mands were practically ignored, and the same disregard of 
all propriety and justice signalized the Consulate in all my’ 
cases that had from first to last disgraced the conduct of Mr. 
Secretary Fish in the State Department at home. How much 
and how far the Consul at Beirut who succeeded me followed 
instructions from Washington I was unable to discover. 

These charges against Consular Clerk Van Dyck are flagrant, 
and they show a violation of duty so gross and wanton that 
no other pretended Government on earth would have let them 
pass without investigation. But Mr. Fish was a friend of 
the friends of the missionaries in Beirut, and this hopeful scion 
of the Van Dyck family felt himself perfectly secure; as, in¬ 
deed, he was. He was effectually backed up by a powerful 


league in Syria, and a more powerful one in New York; and 
remained in his position undisturbed, but I was sacrificed^ 
He was a young man with no family; my wife, children, self,, 
were as nothing. 

If anything can exhibit z state of injustice-, favoritism, and 
dishonor in the State Department of our Government this case- 
must; and there is not a doubt that this man richly deserved, 
for insubordination alone, to have been summarily kicked out 
of office; but, as he said, “ he knew he would be taken care 
of.” There are many more proofs of this favoritism, &c., which 
cannot here be adduced; but if time and space permit I will 
recur again to the action of Mr. Secretarv Fish in this and 
other matters to show how grossly and recklessly he trampled 
on my rights while conniving at the villainy of this young 
man Edward A. Van Dvck, and his co-conspirators. I shall 
next week take up the case of Madame Beaubouclier and the 
treatment she and I received at the hands of this infamous 
clique and the Secretary of State of this great Government. 


LETTER No. XL 

MADAME BEAU BO U CIIE if S CASE. 

I will first present all that can be found in BaraczTs Report 
relating to- the case of this lady. He says: 

“ To have offered to Mrs. E. Beauboncher, the wife of General 
Beauboucher, the former U, S. Consul at Jerusalem, to obtain for 
her a divorce from her husband if she would pay £10 sterling for 
United States Consular fees and ^50 steiling for other expenses 
which he might incur for obtaining testimony in Jerusalem, Liv¬ 
erpool, Paris, &c., &c., Mr. Fisher is said to have entered yjio 011 
his Consular books and to have appropriated to- himself ^50. 

About the end of July Mr. Fisher wrote a letter to Mrs. Beau¬ 
boucher, the wite of General Beauboucher, formerly U. S. Consul 
at Jerusalem, inviting her to come to his office, as he had impor¬ 
tant communications to make to her. The lady came, and Mr. 
Fisher assured her that he took the greatest interest in her case, 
and that he would try to obtain for her a divorce from her husband, 
which, as he said, was very desirable for her and her children’s 
sake. As Mrs. Beauboucher consented, Mr. Fisher intimated that 
the divorce would cost about Ad 5 sterling, Mrs. Beauboucher der 
dared that she was ready to pay the legal expenses, and returned 
to her residence in the mountains to Abeih. 

Mr. Fisher had gone up to Abeih to Mrs. Beauboucher, and told 



71 


‘her that he could do nothing in her case before she paid £io for 
Consular court fees and ^50 for other expenses, like procuring 
testimony and hearing witnesses at Jerusalem, Paris, Liverpool, 
New York, &c., &c. Mrs. Beauboucher and Mrs. Houri swear 
that he pretended to have already spent ^10 for the latter purpose. 
Mrs. Beauboucher paid him the sum, and he returned satisfied to 
Beirut. Mr. E. A. Van Dyck noticed that £10 were deposited 
for Consular court expenses and entered on the books. He in¬ 
quired about the particulars, and found out that Mrs. Beauboucher 
had paid ^£6o, and not ^10. 

It was now that Mrs. Beauboucher, of whom I have spoken, came 
to complain of Mr. Fisher. She said that she had given him jQ 60 
in order to be divorced from her husband, but that the Consul had 
not done anything of the kind as yet, and that she had heard he 
spent the money. On my enquiry Mr. Fisher gave the explanation 
-contained in his statement, (enclosures,) viz. that before deciding 
the question he had some doubts as to his competency—conse¬ 
quently he wrote a letter on the subject io the United States Con¬ 
sul General at Constantinople, and submitted the case to the De¬ 
partment of State, from where he received instructions not to pro¬ 
ceed in the matter before further legislation on the subject, and 
that he still waits for instructions. I explained the state of affairs 
to Mrs. Beauboucher, and told her that our Consul’s conduct was 
entirely justified. But she did not seem convinced, and went to 
meet Mr. Fisher, to whom she said that she renounced the divorce, 
rand wants only her money, Mr. Fisher hesitated—she insisted 
-upon her right to withdraw her action at any moment she chose if 
the defendant did not oppose, and after paying the expenses in¬ 
curred till the moment of the withdrawal. But Mr. Fisher said 
that, having submitted the case to the Department of State, he 
could not return the deposit without special instructions from the 
Department. Mrs. Beauboucher then threatened to bring the case 
before the Legation, and was appeased only when Mr. Fisher 
promised her to obtain the divorce within forty days, (the time will 
have elapsed on the 28th of January,) and asked an official receipt, 
under Consular seal, for the whole amount of ^60, which was 
given to her. 

That he greatly compromised the Consular dignity in proposing 
to Mrs. Beauboucher a divorce without waiting for her application, 
and justified her accusation by refusing to pay her back the de¬ 
posited amount when she declared that she intended to withdraw 
her action against her husband.” 

The above is a full and literal presentation of the famous di¬ 
vorce case by the man Baraczi in his Report to the Department 
of State! 

Let us now see how far it is borne out by the simple facts. 
I had never heard of Madame Beauboucher, or knew of her or 


rz 


her troubles, before she, with her cousin, Edward Portalis, Esq.,, 
as before stated, called on me in my Consulate office, in Beirut,, 
about the 24tli day of July, 1874, therefore did not write first to* 
her. She did not speak English—her cousin, Mr. Portalis did, 
and came with her to me as her friend and her interpreter. She 
said through Mr, Portalis she had come to consult me as to the- 
possibility of obtaining a divorce from her husband, Mr. Victor 
Beauboucher, ex-Consul of the United States at Jerusalem, 
and then supposed to be in the United States. After hearing 
her statement of what she had suffered, in which I could but 
feel a deep interest, (as did also my wife, in whose presence 
subsequently much of her story was repeated,) I told her that 
I thought it would be possible for her to obtain a divorce— 
that I would take the matter into consideration and advise her 
very carefully. I then examined and found the law and reg¬ 
ulations for Consular Courts in Turkey strong enough to war¬ 
rant immediate proceedings in her case, and saw her and Mr. 
Portalis a second time, when she deposited with me £10, and 
a few days afterwards the further sum of £50 was paid me 
after consultation—in all, the sum of $300—as security for all 
costs and expenditures, the same being full}' explained to and 
understood by her and her friends, and for which separate re¬ 
ceipts were in each case given on the spot, and subsequently 
sealed with the Consular seal. Having a little doubt as to one* 
or two points of law' and the rules of practice in such cases in 
the Consular Courts in Turkey, I took pains to write at once to 
Consul General Goodenow, at Constantinople, as to the law 
and rules of practice in such cases in his court. He was then 
absent on conge from his post, and my letter reached him at 
Vienna, Austria, from whence lie wrote me as follows under 
date of August 15, 1871. 

“My Dear Sir : Your letter of July 27, 1874, forwarded Irom 
Constantinople, has just reached me. ***** The only 
rule for your guidance which I am aware ol will be found in sec¬ 
tion 5 of the act of June 22, 186c, which defines the jurisdiction 
of our Consular Courts in Turkey. By ‘ the laws of the United 
States ’ referred to in said section I understand * the laws of the 
District of Columbia.’ At any rate, in the divorce cases which / 
have tried, I applied the law of the District of Columbia on this 
subject, which you will of course find in the United States Statutes 

at Large. There is no doubt that General B-is a scoundrel, 

and that his wife ought to have a divorce. The only edition of 
Consular rules and regulations for Consular Courts in Turkey was 
promulgated in June, 1862, or 1863. 




73 


Hoping that the pleasure of your personal acquaintance is in 
reserve for no distant day, I remain yours, very respectfully, 

[Signed.) J. H. Goodenow.’ 

This reply was sent to Minister Boker at Constantinople, 
and by him transmitted to me, with the accompanying letter, 
as follows : 

‘'Legation of the United Staies, Sept. 5, 1874. 
George S. Fisher, Esq.: 

Dear Sir : * * * * * Mr. Goodenow, who is away on 

conge , sent me a manly and sensible letter addressed by you to him 
on the subject of your appointment, which letter—pardon me for 
the liberty of the remark—has made me take a great liking to you, 
and has convinced me that we shall get along swimingly together. 

As a friend who feels an interest in the success of your adminis¬ 
tration of your office, let me request you to read and consider and 
abide by article V, paragragh last, of the Treaty of 1830, and all 
will be well with you. On the point there settled the Department 
is very strict, and the violation of that stipulation is the rock on 
which your predecessors have split. 

With my best wishes, I reman, dear sir, yours, sincerely, 

(Signed.) Geo. H. Boker.” 

I now present the proclamation of the Minister Resident of 
the United States at the Sublime Porte bearing upon this subject: 

‘ ‘ To the Consuls of the United States in the Ottoman Empire : 

In pursuance of the fifth section of the act of Cougress approved 
June 22, i860, entitled ‘An act to carry into effect provisions of 
treaties between the United States, China, Japan, Siam, Persia and 
other countries, giving certain judicial powers to Ministers and Con¬ 
suls and other functionaries of the United States in those countries, 
and for other purposes,’ I do hereby decree the folio wiug regulations, 
decrees and orders, comprising rules, forms, and a table of costs 
and fees, which shall have the force of law in the Consular Courts 
of the United States of America in the Ottoman Empire until an¬ 
nulled or modified by the Congress of the United States. 

Edward Joy Morris, 

Minister Resident of the United States 

at the Sublime Porte . 

Constantinople, March 31, 1868.” 

Amongst the rules and regulations for the Consular Courts 
of the United States in the Ottoman Empire prescribed by the 
act of Congress and proclamation aforesaid, was the following 
under the head of 

“ divorce: 

§ 46. Libels for divorce must be signed and sworn to before the 
Consul, and on the trial each party may testify. 

10 


74 


§ 47 - The Consul for good cause may order the attachment of 
libelers’ property to such an amount and on such terms as he may 
think proper. 

§ 48. He may also at his discretion order the husband to ad¬ 
vance his wife or pay into court a reasonable sum to enable her to 
prosecute or defend the libel, with a reasonable monthly allowance 
for her support pending the proceedings. 

§ 49. Alimony may be awarded or denied the wife on her divorce 
at his discretion. 

§ 50. Custody of minor children may be decreed to such party 
as justice and the childrens’ good may require. 

§ 51. Divorce releases both parties, and they shall not be re¬ 
married to each other. 

§ 52. Costs are at the discretion of the Consul.” 

In regard further to Consul’s jurisdiction in all cases in civil 
and criminal law see United States Statutes at Large, section 
4,086. 

But the more I found out about this case and its importance 
I did not rest here. General Beauboucher, the proposed party 
defendant, had been in the Army of the United States, and 
in the Consular service of the United States, and was then 
supposed to be in Washington, or if not there, that he could 
be readily discovered by means which the Department of 
State might easily employ. I did not wish nor mean to make a 
mistake of any kind in this important matter—the first of 
the kind that had been laid before me as Consul at Beirut, 
and so far as I could discover the first divorce case ever ap¬ 
plied for in that Consulate Court. I accordingly sent the fol¬ 
lowing dispatch to Washington under date of August 16,1874: 

“Hon. Hamilton Fish, 

Secretary of State, Washington , &c., &c.: 

Sir : Madame Emma Beauboucher, wife of Victor Beauboucher, 
formerly United States Consul at Jerusalem, residing now with her 
father in the Lebanon, represents to me that she was married to 
said Victor Beauboucher on the 13th day of November, 1866,—that 
in 1869 he was removed from office on ‘ grave charges,’—that during 
the time of their residence at Jerusalem she suffered at his hands 
almost every possible indignity and the harshest treatment and 
cruelty, yet forbore public complaint. That during three years her 
sufferings at times were almost unendurable, and immediately on his 
removal from office, because she would not induce her father to 
place in his hands the entire control of her property, he threatened 
and shamefully abused and maltreated her,—that by fraudulent rep¬ 
resentation he finally succeeded in getting from her father about 
twenty-eight thousand francs,—that he then left her, went to Turin, 


Italy, and thence to Paris, France. That while there representing 
himself as an unmarried man, he made proposals of marriage to 
one Mademoselle Lambert which she accepted,—that pending their 
wedding preparations he succeeded in getting possession of between 
four and five thousand francs worth of jewels to have reset for her, 
and then left for England and the United States,—that she, Mad¬ 
ame Beauboucher, did not hear from him again, except incidentally, 
until the month of April, 1873 through the French Consul in Que¬ 
bec. Subsequently in the month of May, 1873, he arrived in the 
Steamer Moravian at Portland, Maine, with a lady registered as 
Madame Victor Beauboucher. At a later date, through his Excel¬ 
lency the Marquis de Noalles, Minister of France at Washington, 
she heard of his arrival in that city with a lady whom he repre¬ 
sented as his wife,—that since that date she has not heard of him 
and does not know his present whereabouts;—that she has had no 
communication with him in five years, nor has he ever provided for 
her or her children’s support one dollar since his desertion ;—that 
she has two children by him and now supports them by her own 
means and industry. 

Her petition for divorce will soon be filed in my Consular Court, 
and now, if it be proper, I would like the Department of State to 
furnish me with any documents or testimony (it may have) that 
will confirm her cause and help to facilitate her legal divorce. 
Madame Beauboucher is reported a most estimable lady and ap¬ 
pears to be such, and one who has suffered very greatly at this 
man’s hands. She has a property in her own right of about thirty 
thousand francs, and on the decease of her father, will, it is ex¬ 
pected, come into a considerable estate. That she should be enti¬ 
tled to a divorce and full control of her children’s property cannot 
be doubted. But before the petition is filed and acted upon, I think 
any further information you may be . ble to give me in relation to 
the case, or the present whereabouts of the husband, if known in 
Washington, should be given me and properly made a part of the 
case and record. From a careful examination of her case and 
papers, and personal interviews, I feel a considerable interest in 
the case, and am sure that right and justice demand the.speediest 
and surest action I have authority to administer. 

I have the honor to be, &c., &c., 

George S. Fisher, Consul, 

The reply to this despatch from the State Department under 
date of September 23, 1874, will probably astound the public 
on its perusal as much as it did myself. And this document 
should have been enough, in itself, to have sent Mr. Secretary 
Fish at once into the shades of retirement and all concerned 
with him for their ignorance, or their willful subversion of the 
law and rights of this case. The document reads as follows: 

O 


76 


“ George S. Fisher, &c., &c.: 

Sir: Your despatch No. 6, of the 16th ultimo has been received. 
It relates to the case of Mrs. Emma Beauboucher, wife of Mr. Victor 
Beauboucher, formerly Consul of the United States at Jerusalem. 
It seems that that person supposes that she has cause for a divorce 
from her husband ; you consequently request information supposed 
to be in this Department relating to the case. In reply I have to 
remark that some years have elapsed since Mr. Beauboucher was 
in the service of this Government. The Department since his re¬ 
tirement has had no curiosity in regard to his proceedings and has 
no knowledge of them. It never heard of his wife or even was 
aware that he had one. Be that as it may, however, the law advi¬ 
ser of the Department, to whom the question has been referred, is 
of the opinion that as the law now stands, a Consular Court of the 
United States entertaining jurisdiction in cases of divorce, does so 
without legal warrant or authority. It is consequently deemed 
preferable that under existing circumstances you should not exer¬ 
cise such jurisdiction. The subject obviously is one of too much 
importance, not only to the parties immediately concerned, but to 
others, and to possible rights of property in this country, to be tam¬ 
pered with unless there shall have been explicit legislative authority 
therefor. 

I am sir, your obedient servant, 

[Signed,] Wm. Hunter, 

Second Assistant Secretary. 

What a perfect model of a document was this to be sent 
from the great Secretary of State, representing the Government 
of the United States, to one of its Consular representatives— 
ex officio a Judge of a Consular Court in a foreign country ! Its 
trifling and flippant tone—its atrocious—yes, that is the very 
word—its atrocious insensibility to the distress and misery of 
an estimable and suffering woman, her rights, with those of her 
innocent children—and more than all, its tyrannical disregard 
of law and right in the case, per se , crown it with a measure of 
infamy which ought to cover the brow of those who concocted 
it with crimson shame ! If I am not misinformed, the present 
law examiner of the Department did not concur in this advice. 
On the reception of this document I was amazed—I could 
scarcely believe my eyes. I have since, however, learned the 
secret of this cold-blooded and insulting letter. The Secre¬ 
tary ot State had then begun to receive large invoices of let¬ 
ters from Consular Clerk Van Dyck and his co-conspirators 
at Beirut to drive me not only out of court, but also out of 
my office. The Dodge letter and conspiracy to disgrace me 
had commenced its work—and the Secretary "of State thought 


77 


more of tliem than of the criminal injustice to a wronged and 
suffering woman, with her little children, who, in case of her 
decease, would, with all her estate, be subject at once to the 
will of her base betrayer, her “ scoundrel” husband. 

It is also well known that probably scores, if not hundreds, 
of divorce cases under the same rules and regulations cited 
above, have been adjudicated and decreed in our Consular 
Courts in foreign countries where exterritoriality laws by 
treaty are extended, and that Congress has never repealed the 
authority so promulgated by Minister Morris, approved hv 
'Secretary "Wm. II. Seward, and President Lincoln, and the 
37tli Congress, and adopted for use in all the countries named. 
See Ex. Dec. Xo. 25, 3d session, 37th Cong. Precisely the 
same rules, too, were again promulgated for the Consular 
Courts in China and Japan in 1874—but I need not repeat 
them here, and this with the approval of Secretary Eish ! 

In the meantime, having received the notes published from 
Mr. Boker and Mr. Goodenow, and believing that this action 
of the State Department had resulted through some unfortu¬ 
nate misapprehension, I wrote again representing respectfully 
my views of the situation to the Hon. Mr. Fish, and also a 
private note to Judge O’Connor, the law examiner of the De¬ 
partment. It was while awaiting this last reply from the De¬ 
partment of State—which by the way never came-—that the 
good lady fell (as I suppose) into the hands of the Van Dycks, 
and for a short time vielded herself in a measure to their in- 

c/ 

fluence and machinations, which were incessant and as ma¬ 
lignant as pertinacious. 

Before receiving the reply of Mr. Goodenow, I had begun 
to take steps for the preparation of preliminary matters in the 
case, (which a young American lawyer then in Beirut would 
have taken charge.) The form and facts of a bill were blocked 
out to be followed; also, notes of testimony to be taken bv 
depositions abroad, form of publication notices, and translations 
of notes and documents placed in my hands by Madame B. I 
had also had a consultation with herself, her father, her brother- 
in-law, and cousin again in Beirut; also one, and perhaps two, 
at Abeih, where she came to see me, in the months of August 
and September—once when a Mrs. Houri accompanied her. 
Baraczi, in his report, says, “ I had gone up to Abeili to see her 
and get money,” and that “she and Mrs. Houri (wife of one 
of my perjured and dismissed Dragomans) both swear that I 
pretended I had already spent £10 in preparations for the case.” 
Madame B. did not live at Abeih; but I did temporarily, dur- 


78 


mg August and September, though portions of each week per¬ 
sonally I was in Beirut; nor had I then spent a para of her 
money. Both are misrepresentations, and if these ladies swore- 
to what Baraczi says, they swore to what they did not know. The 
money, except a small difference of change—I think £2 or £3, 
perhaps £5 —was paid at the Consulate, as before stated by me, 
in Beirut, with the full knowledge, consent, and approbation 
of her father, brother-in-law, and cousin, and what the swearing 
of Mrs. Houri had to do with it—first made known to me in 
this report—is only further evidence of the powerful conspiracy 
framed against me at that time and securely being investigated 
to be covered up by the State Department, while I was labor¬ 
ing anxiously to afford relief to the good lady and her little 
ones, she, unhappily, (I shall never believe wantonly,) was per¬ 
mitting herself to be made a tool of by my malignant foes. 
Then Baraczi adds that young Van Dyck pretended to have 
discovered that while I got £60, only £10 were entered on the 
books! Well, what of that ? I have already explained that 
£50 of this money was a special deposit at the Consulate, outside 
of the Consulate Court fees, and it was to have been used for a 
specific, necessary, and legitimate purposes, with the understand¬ 
ing, consent, and approbation of Madame B. and her nearest 
friends. Will any one say, in view of the important work to- 
be done in this most interesting and, in some respects, intricate 
case, this sum was excessive or exorbitant ? And, in view of 
the Consular Court regulations in such cases and paragraph 52, 
above cited, will any one say that it was not my right and duty 
to fix this reason able sum ? What had the prying, insolent, 
impudent Consular Clerk, Van Dyck, to do with this matter in 
any way save only to carry on his nefarious plottings, calum¬ 
nies, and machinations, by seizing upon and distorting into 
some alleged criminality even the simplest and most open acts 
of my life ? 1 had no secret whatever except to protect the 

rights of this lady pending preparatory arrangements to her 
public appearance in my open Court. 

The next thing we hear of Madame Beauboucher is her 
coming down to Beirut, in January, 1875, as a complainant 
against me, having been importuned and incited to this by the 
Van Dycks, {father and son,) and Houri & Co., to make out be¬ 
fore the star-chamber inquisition court, then sitting in dark 
places behind my back entirely unknown to me, a false and 
calumnious construction of her official business at the Consulate. 
Tt is clear, and Baraczi’s report shows, if he is to be believed 
at all, that this woman had been talked over bv the Van Dycks 


79 


'and their associates, co-conspirators, and actually made to be- 
lieve that I had cheated and deceived her, or was intending so 
to do ! That consequently she was fearful of the result, and of 
losing her money, which it was alleged “ she had heard (who 
from ?) I had spent” and was willing to put her case in such a 
light as to make it bear most unfavorably upon me; and yet 
Baraczi states, in so many words, that “ he explained the whole 
matter to her, and assured her that my conduct in her case was 
entirely justified.” 

But the conspiracy had now been fully perfected in Wash¬ 
ington and Beirut, and all parts of it were working to firmly 
enclose me in its toils and justify the libelous “ Dodge letter ” and 
the circular and statements of its circulators, the Yan Bycks, 
father and son, and their co-workers. The utter silence of the 
State Department in regard to my repeated dispatches on this sub¬ 
ject; my demand for all charges and specifications of any and 
all kinds against me; the practical defiance of the law of this 
case by Mr. Secretary Fish; his arbitrary assumption of power 
to deprive me of my Consular right of jurisdiction in this case ; 
the delay thus occasioned; the constant suggestions and impor¬ 
tunities of the Yan Bycks and the horde of co-conspirators, 
discharged Dragomans, with their wives and suborned perjurers 
working on the fears and anxieties of Madame B., and her 
friends ; all contributed to make it impossible for me to accom¬ 
plish my plain duty in the matter, and so accordingly about 
the close of January or February 1st I had an interview with 
the afflicted lady, and having fully explained to her the true facts 
and situation of affairs, read to her and her father and cousin my 
correspondence with the State Department, &c., and showed 
her that I had exhausted all the means in my power to grant 
her relief, but without success; I agreed to refund to her, and 
afterwards did refund her entire deposits she had made with 
me, less the actual sums expended, (about five pounds ten shil¬ 
lings and six pence in all,) for translations, copying, postage, 
and two books sent for to London, (Bishop on the Law of Di¬ 
vorce.) With this both she and her friends expressed them¬ 
selves as entirely satisfied, receipted to me for the money, and 
were convinced that I had acted an honorable and upright 
part, with no intent of wronging her or any one connected with 
the matter. And ever after, and as long as we remained in 
Beirut, we were on the most friendly and confidential terms 
with her and her numerous family connections, among the 
best families in Beirut. That she could not rid herself of the 
brutal man from whom she has suffered so much and so long, 


80 


was cine alone to tlie outrageous conduct of Mr. Fish, incited- 
by the conspirators at Beirut. It was then, is now, and ever 
will be, to them, and them alone, a burning shame, an ever¬ 
lasting disgrace! 

And Baraczi says I compromised in this case “ the Consu¬ 
lar dignity !” Any jury of Americans, men or women, may 
decide this question, and I will abide by it. My conscience 
has never for one moment feared what that verdict will be, 
and God knows what it ought to be both here and will be in 
the hereafter! 


LETTER Xo. XII. 

ANTONIO YENNI. 

I will pursue the same course in presenting the character 
and conduct of this man to the public as in the case of Madame 
Beauboucher. I will first transcribe all that relates to him in 
Baraczi’s report. He says he found I was accused— 

“ Of having invited to Beirut four of my Consular Agents, viz ; 
A. Debbas of Tarsus, A. Yenni of Tripoli, A. Levi of Alexandretta 
and Mr. Abela of Sidon, and of having asked one hundred pounds 
sterling of each for their confirmation in their offices. Levi and 
Abela were supposed to have paid the above sum, while A. Debbas 
and A. Yenni refused to do so, and the former stated his complaint 
to the United States Legation at Constantinople. 

To have taken a mare from his Consular Agent at Tripoli and 
offered to pay him her price before witnesses on condition that he 
should receive the money back secretly. 

Mr. Fisher wanted a horse and wrote to A. Yenni, the U. S. 
Consular Agent at Tripoli, to send one, as the enclosed original 
correspondence shows. Mr. Yenni complied with the request in 
sending a mare three-quarters of which belonged to himself and 
one-quarter to another person. Mr. Fisher inquired for the price 
of the one qnarter and kept the mare. 

In the beginning of September, A. Yenni came to Beirut to see 
Mr. Fisher, as he states in his enclosed sworn declaration. Mr. 
Fisher asked fifty pounds sterling for his confirmation as Consular 
Agent, and as A. Yenni refused, he come down to forty pounds. 
He asks fifteen hundred piastres, (about fifty dollars,) for the fir¬ 
man of A. Yenni’s son, G. Yenni, who solicited the appointment 
to Hums and Hamath. Besides, Mr. Fisher asked certain fees for 
taking up the lawsuit of Mr. Yenni before the Turkish tribunals. 
Mr. Fisher, in his declaration to the U. S. Legation, a copy of 
which I herewith enclose, simply denies to have ever asked any- 





81 


thing for A. Yenni’s confirmation or G. Yenni’s nomination as 
Consular Agent; and though the accusation seems not to be entirely 
unfounded, if the analogy between the statements of A. Yenni and 
A. Debbas be taken into consideration, no positive proof could be 
obtained as to it, especially as the two conversing parties used an 
interpreter, Mr. Habeeb Naggair, who seldom interprets faithfully. 

It is otherwise with the lawsuit of Mr. A. Yenni. While this 
gentleman pretends that he was asked by Mr. Fisher to pay him 
fees for his legal advice, rnd adds that he would have been ready 
to pay a reasonable amount, but not the immense sum of one hun¬ 
dred pounds. Mr. Fisher admits only to have accepted the offer 
of fees for his legal advice. A. Yenni, who seems to have been ex¬ 
asperated at the amount asked by Mr. Fisher, complained loudly 
of the Consul’s exactions. He wrote a letter to Rev. Dr. Jessup, 
an American missionary at Beirut, in which he stated to him the 
above facts. 

In the beginning of October, the son of A. Yenni, G. Yenni, 
came to Mr. Fisher and urged the case of his father. At the same 
time he tried to settle the question of the mare. Mr. Fisher was 
willing to pay the one-quarter which did not belong to Mr. Yenni, 
but showed no disposition to pay the other three. G. Yenni 
states under oath that Mr. Fisher proposed to him to pay the full 
amount of the mare before witnesses if the money would be re¬ 
turned to him afterwards. As G. Yenni did not consent to such a 
way of settling the question, Mr. Fisher returned the mare to A. 
Yenni. 

That Mr. Fisher has invited at least two of his Consular Agents 
to Beirut, and has promised to examine and take up their lawsuits. 
It must be noticed that Mr. Fisher had no right to ask fees for his 
legal advice, as it is his duty to protect the rights of his subordi¬ 
nates. 

The complaints against Mr. Fisher had been brought both before 
the Department of State and the Legation. Mr Fisher knew only 
about the latter fact, but he did not feel sure as long as E. A. Van 
Dyck remained in the office. Consequently he recommended his 
removal He awaited anxiously the decision of the Department 
of State as to the Consular Clerk, and during the whole period of 
the 15th of October to the 3rd of December, the day of my arrival 
in Beirut, behaved so that there is no complaint against him.” 

On this representation I submit the following remarks, pre¬ 
mising that Mr. Yenni came to Beirut August 28, 1874, not 
in September, as stated by Baraczi. 

1. I had distinctly demanded of Baraczi that if he had come 
to Beirut to put me upon trial that he should furnish me with a 
copy of all charges and complaints of every kind and nature 
whatever; that he should conduct any and all examinations at 

11 


82 


the Consulate before me, and in my presence; bring all wit¬ 
nesses before me face to face, to be sworn before me; permit 
only a fair, full, open investigation by rebuttal and cross-ex¬ 
amination. He at once repudiated anything so formal, and 
again and again assured me that he was not sent for any such 
purpose, and that the only points he had been charged to in¬ 
quire about were the three matters already related in this nar¬ 
rative ; that “ many other rumors had been set afloat by the 
Van Dycks and their friends, but, as before, that they were 
frivolous and trifling, and not worthy of my attention.” Yet 
here we find him retailing all the miserable gossip of the gar¬ 
rulous, lying native Syrians, notoriously the commonest liars, 
in a grave official document, upon the ground of which I was 
to lose my official head ; and this, notwithstanding Mr. Boker’s 
promise “to sing out if he saw rocks ahead,” and “that he 
knew Syria as if he had made it!” &c., &c. 

2. It appears here that Baraczi took the sworn statements of 
several parties, whom I know nothing of whatever, without 
giving me the slightest hint or intimation of the same, nor the 
least chance to have confronted these affiants and have cross- 
examined and contradicted or impeached them on the spot. 

8. The statements of the son, George Yenni, are absolutely 
and unqualifiedly false and perjury about the mare from be¬ 
ginning to end—a subornation of perjury in fact, well known 
by Edward A. Van Dyck, and which I could and would then 
and there have thoroughly and completely exposed and proven 
to have been so clearly, that Mr. Yenni could by no possibility 
have escaped conviction of perjury. The facts of that case I 
have already shown, and the testimony against this tool of vil¬ 
lainy would have been instant and overwhelming. Hot one 
word of this did I ever hear or suspect until I read it in this 
Report in 'Washington. I repeat, every word of it is perjury 
of the rankest and foulest kind, and the men that cover it up 
are as guilty as the perjurer himself. 

4. The letter of A. Yenni, purporting to have been written 
to Rev. Dr. Henry II. Jessup, (a cunning piece of strategy, 
but fatal in its effect,) was concocted at Beirut after the indig¬ 
nation meeting was held, but ante-dated September 1, 1874, 
to give it the appearance of having been written immediately 
after Yennfs first interview with me. 

5. I have already sufficiently set forth the real facts in refer¬ 
ence to the mare which A. Yenni sent to me and I returned 
to him, never having used her once. 

6. As to my asking him exorbitant fees for taking up his 


83 


lawsuit against ex-Judge Sultan, at the earnest solicitation of 
the Rev. Samuel Jessup, there is not the slightest truth in it. 
lie made a liberal offer to me, but without asking him one 
dollar, I had the case ordered transferred, through the orders of 
the Governor General of Syria at Damascus, from Tripoli to the 
Mixed Commercial Court of Beirut; and the only thanks or 
pay ot any kind I have ever had is this libelous attack on me 
tor it, and that is the only pa} 7 1 shall probably ever receive. 

7. As to ,my demanding anv monev for confirming him in 
office, or for appointing his son, George Yenni, to be Consular 
Agent at Hums and Hamath, this is an outright falsehood. 
Mr. Hay had appointed him, and I had confirmed his appoint¬ 
ment at the Legation, though his firman was withheld after 
approval by Minister Boker, and my action was based upon 
Rev. Samuel Jessup’s letter to me dated August 11,1874, now 
before me. 

8. The son, George Yenni, while at Beirut, was in close, 
constant, and the most confidential intercourse with Edward 
A. Van Dyck and the discharged Dragomans day and night, 
and was instigated by him and them to swear falsely in order 
to condemn me. I now know he is a consummate villain, 
equal to any scoundralism, and I could have established the 
fact with no trouble at all had I known anything of his so- 
called swearing in Beirut. 

I will now proceed to relate the substantial facts of the case 
so far as they concern the two Yennis, father and son—a 
precious pair, indeed. The first thing almost that I knew 
about them, this man A. Yenni wrote to Edward A. Van 
Dyck for leave of absence, not to exceed ten days, for himself 
and his son to come to Beirut “ to pay the new Consul their 
respects,” and, as they say, “ to know his pleasure in their of¬ 
fices.” This permission brought them to call on me August 28, 
1874. Both were pleasant as sycophantic Greeks can be; not one 
word was said as to Mr. Yenni, Sr.’s, discontinuance in office, or 
paying me any price for the same. At that interview Mr. A. 
Yenni begged to present Mr. Samuel Jessup’s letter, (on page 
43,) pay his respects, and consult with me as to a very large 
and just claim due him by a high official at Tripoli—a matter 
that was long past due—which he had been unable to collect, 
and which he feared he should never get unless I would vig¬ 
orously attend to it for him. He then presented me, through 
his son and Mr. Habeeb Hasrffiar, the letter of Mr. Samuel 
Jessup, subsequently one of the proxies of the indignation 
meeting, urging me, as already shown, to comply with Yenni’s 


84 


request. The man then stated the justice and hardships of his 
claim—why he was so anxious about it, and why he had got¬ 
ten Mr. S. Jessup so earnestly to intercede for him; and then, 
of his own accord, freely offered to pay me any price I would 
name if I would only collect his claim. I took his papers, 
vouchers and accounts. There were three of them—Ho. 1 
figured at 12 per cent, interest per annum, Xo. 2 at 12 per 
cent, per annum as to his own personal interest and 18 per 
cent, as to the interest of a deceased brother’s widow and chil¬ 
dren, and Xo. 3 at 20 per cent, per annum for both interests, 
amounting in all to about $13,000. These three original papers 
I now have before me. There were also some Arabic letters of 
Judge Ahmed Sultan’s, the debtor, and other notes and mem¬ 
oranda. I told him I would look into the matter, and that he 
might call the next day. He came again the'next day, on the 
last day of August, and again September 1st; and after ex¬ 
planations and further discussions of the case, he repeated his 
voluntary offer of a fee, legal, or notarial as it may be called, 
to secure him the speediest transfer of the case to the Beirut 
Mixed Commercial Court and the collection of the money. I 
do not remember precisely the sum stated he was willing to 
pay, but think it was something more than one hundred 
pounds. I neither then, nor at anytime, said one word to him 
about his retention in office, or levying a contribution upon it.. 
But believing from his exhibits, as well as the voluntary tes¬ 
timony of the Rev. S. Jessup urging so warmly that he had 
a just claim against the defendant, I at once unreservedly 
acted in the matter, being satisfied, on axamination of the 
law, that by right the case could be transferred to the Beirut 
court. The same day I came to this determination I wrote a 
dispatch to the Governor General of Syria, Alet Pasha, at 
Damascus, covering claim numbered 2, which I advised Mr. 
Yenni to file; also enclosed him several letters of ex-Judge 
Sultan admitting the claim, together with other documents 
showing the injustice practiced in the courts at Tripoli in the 
case of Yenni vs. Ahmed Sultan, with a request to have the 
case ordered by His Excellency transferred to the Mixed Com¬ 
mercial Court at Beirut, and the Governor General com¬ 
plied with my request. 

At this same interview the son’s firman was a second time 
introduced by the father, also calling attention to Rev. Mr. 
Samuel Jessup’s letter to me on that subject, dated the 11th 
August, who urgently therein pressed his son’s recognition as 
Consular Agent for Hums and Hamath, notwithstanding Mr. 


85 


A. Yenni states “ that it was not necessary tliat his son should 
have this position,” &c., and denies that he urged his case upon 
me. And when he called my attention to Mr. Jessup’s letter 
and appeal in his behalf, he distinctly said that on his receiving 
or my securing his firman for him, lie would freely and cheer¬ 
fully pay me not less than £50. My answer to this was that 
whatever necessary expenses the firman would cost in Constan¬ 
tinople, together with fees and charges from the Consulate 
General, and postages, I should expect to he reimbursed to me, 
but nothing further would be asked or expected. I had con¬ 
cluded to retain the son in the position which he had nomi¬ 
nally filled from the date of Mr. Hay’s appointment, in No- 
vember, 1873, on Mr. Jessup’s letters, and had written, or the 
next day or two after wrote Minister Boker for his confirma¬ 
tion at the Sublime Porte. On the evening of the same day 
Yenni, the father, called on me at my hotel, and in a social, 
informal, and desultory conversation we talked over many 
matters—about his long occupation of his office under various 
Consuls and of its great value or benefit to him—but I never 
dreamed of his removal or of his paying me a farthing for his 
retention in office. Nor was that subject referred to by me. 
And I here recall another circumstance which at the time 
seemed to me somewhat remarkable; but I was not then sus¬ 
picious of him nor so fully aware of the capabilities of these 
Syrian Christians and Christian converts as I am now. Yenni 
said to me that he knew that Hr. Metheny, of Latakia, United 
States Consular Agent, would soon vacate his office; that he 
intended to resign, and voluntarily offered that if he could 
have the naming his successor he would not hesitate to give at 
least £50 for that privilege. I emphatically told him I knew 
nothing of any such design on the part of Hr. Metheny, and 
could entertain no such proposition. 

On the strength of Yenni’s statement of his intended resig¬ 
nation, the next day, on going to my Consulate office, I must 
have written a note of inquiry to Hr. Metheny on this subject 
which I probably kept no copy of, for I do not find one; but 
I find this reply from Hr. Metheny, which fully corroborates 
my statement, viz : 


“ Latakia, September 21, 1874. 

Hon. Geo. S. Fisher, 

U S. Consul Beirut , 

Yours of September 2 is before me. Though I am a minister of 
the Gospel, yet I see nothing inconsistent with my holding this 


86 


officers'! have done for many years. I clo not desire to relinquish?, 
it, as the citizens of America here desire me to hold the office. 

Respectfully, 

(Signed) D. Metheny.” 

The truth new seems clear to me that I ought then and 
there on the spot to have dismissed both the Yennis from my 
office and from their offices. But how little did I imagine the 
possibility of the villainous schemes that were even then being 
put in train by professedly Christian men to undermine and 
destroy me. This man Yenni then took leave of me, and I 
never saw him again. My eyes were shut at that time, as the 
old Cavass so well expressed it. I was asleep, and I not only 
allowed Yenni, the father, to retain his office, but after receiv¬ 
ing Minister Boker’s reply, under date of the 13th October, 
confirming my appointment of George Yenni, the son, and ad¬ 
vising his firman, I wrote the father at Tripoli, advising him of 
the fact, and received from him the following note : 

“Tripoli, 29th November, 1874. 

Col. G. S. Fisher, 

U S. Consul, Beirut , 

My Dear Sir; Allow me to beg your pardon for having not an¬ 
swered you to your letter announcing that H. E., the Minister, has 
been so kind as to inform you of the approach of forwarding the 
firman of my son George. The cause of delay of my answer is the 
sickness which I feel since some days. Many thanks for your kind 
information and care. Accept, dear sir, the assurance of my es¬ 
teem. 

Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, 

(Signed) Antonio Yenni.” 

While all this was transpiring this son, G. Yenni, remained 
at Beirut, living, as I afterwards learned, a fast life, spending a 
good deal of money, and in frequent and earnest association 
and consultation with Edward A. Yan Dyck, while lie care¬ 
fully avoided me, I also learned from Achmet, the old Cavass, 
that while I was at Abeili, G. Yenni hung about the Consulate 
constantly in close and confidential intercourse with Van Dyck. 
There is not now a particle of doubt that they were concocting 
plans of action which were intended to asperse and defame me, 
and it would be folly to look upon it in any other light. 

All this began to dawn upon me only when Baraczi sub¬ 
mitted to me—I think on the 9tli December, 1874—the docu¬ 
ment of A. Yenni’s complaint which he had brought with him 
from Constantinople, and in which I beheld for the first time 



87 


the evidence of perjury and subornation of perjury to ruin me. 
With the greatest amazement I perused the contents of that 
document, and saw how completely this man Yenni and his 
son had been used as tools by my enemies to strike me down. 
Then my eyes were opened. Then I awoke and saw the folds 
of the serpent that was coiling round me. 

Yow mark, this extraordinary and singular circumstance, 
that by this time Abdo Deb has had appeared and made a com¬ 
plaint and statement that purports to have been dated at Beirut, 
October 14, 1874,—that Rev. Samuel Jessup and Antonio 
1. enni, both lived at Tripoli—yet this pretended complaint 
of Yenni’s, dated Beirut, September 1, 1874, (purporting to 
be a letter Jirst written to the Rev. Dr. Henry H. Jessup, Beirut, 
and. sent to him the day it was written,) was not presented to 
the indignation meeting October 1,1874, thirty days after it pur- ? 
ports to have been written—was not even mentioned or alluded 7 
to, and was not sent to Minister Boker till October 15 
1874; indeed not until the statement of Debbas was sent— i. e., 
both at or about the same mail! The proof is positive that 
Yenni’s statement was not known at the indignation meeting 
oi October 1st, and was not thought of till some days subse¬ 
quently ; that it was then drawn up at Beirut , and ante-datecl 
as though it had been sent to Rev. Dr. H. H. Jessup the day of 
its date; and the only copy— mark again —I ever saw, was the 
original translation from Arabic sent to Minister Boker in the 
handwriting of, and translated by, Edward A. Van Dyck, and 
shown to me by Mr. Baraczi December 9th, 1874, a verbatim et 
literatim copy of which now lies before me. There can be no 
question that the whole statement, so far as it reflects on me, 
was a shameless and perjured fabrication originating in the vil¬ 
lainy of young Yan Dyck and his colleagues in collusion with 
the Yennis’, father and son. This is Syrian cunning and in¬ 
trigue with a vengeance! 

Now let us inquire further into the status of this man Antonio 
Yenni He has been for many years a great pet of the mis¬ 
sionaries. He is a Greeco-Syrian. It was said that he had be- 
come a Christian, and on this account had suffered great per¬ 
secution from his family, relatives, and former friends—had 
been ostracised and hunted down in every direction, but had 
forsaken all for Christ—houses, lands, kindred, and everything 
dear in this life. But it will be noticed just here that while 
he had held the position without salary of Consular Agent of 
the United States, with ostensibly no other business for up_ 
wards of thirty years, he had large sums of money outstand_ 


✓ 


88 


ing and due Inm—one debt alone (a large fortune In Syria) of 
upwards of $13,000, and had not forsaken the proceeds of hi® 
12, 20, and 30 per cent, per annum on money always to loan,, 
and on the sums his debtors owed him. Mr. Yenni was said 
to have heen a poor man when he first took the agency at 
Tripoli. At the time I knew him he was supposed to be worth 
at least $100,000. 

The regulation of the Consular Agency is that if the fees 
of the office exceed annually the sum of $1,000, (which is the 
highest salary allowed a Consular Agent for the duties of his 
office,) the agent shall pay to the Treasury of the United States 
any excess, and make returns to the Consul, his superior officer, 
of all fees received by him, whatever allowance he may retain. 
But it is rarely ever the case that any such returns have here- 
fore been made in these small Consular agencies—never any 
excess of the allowance by law. Occasionally a small quar¬ 
terly amount may be reported, but the sum in the aggregate 
of all the Consular agencies subordinate to Beirut is very in¬ 
considerable, though it is certain all these Consular Agents 
manage to feather their nests without much difficulty: at least 
they all become independent if not wealthy men. 

A very clear-headed, keen, and observing writer, an English 
gentleman who has traveled extensively in Syria and Asia 
Minor, well known to the British Foreign Office, and w T ho well 
knew what he was treating of, thus describes the situation: 

“ In my travels in the coast line cities and towns in this ancient 
and interesting field of study, I find a class of neophites—not 
native, but mostly Greeco-Syrian men—a mixture of merchant, 
trader, speculator, money-lender, operator, commissioncire , and some¬ 
times Dragoman, and where he can get it by influential patronage, 
or purchase, or favoritism the position of Consular Agent or Vice- 
Consular Agent under some one of the European or American Gov¬ 
ernments. These men, though comparatively poor, almost invariably 
become wealthy by the special opportunities they have—exemptions 
from taxation, military and naval service, and civil duties—which 
gives them social status, protection of the national flag they may hoist, 
and certain immunities and privileges that are supposed to pertain 
to official rank and position ; and this class of men, many of them, 
exact and receive a certain homage that makes gain greedy and 
gives them advantages in ‘buying and selling and getting gain/ 
and in investing in loans at usurious rates that annually have to be 
renewed until the interest eats up the principal, and so the country 
becomes annually more and more at the mercy of money—the poor 
poorer, the rich richer,—which is now seriously affecting the whole 
agricultural population and productions of this entire coast. The 


89 


whole landed interest is rapidly being transferred into the hands of 
usurers and money-lenders, while the resources (crops) are annu. 
ally less important, less for trade and commerce.” 

The Yennis, father and son, belong to this class of land 
sharks and money-lenders. They are both proteges of the 
“good missionaries” in Syria. They had turned from heathen 
darkness and Mahommedan error to the light and truth of the 
Gospel. They were fine specimens of Christian con version in 
the hands of such a character as Mr. Consular Clerk Edward 
A. Van Dyck. And these are the men, covered with false¬ 
hood and perjury, 011 whose testimony (when and where given ?) 
as reported hv Baraczi to the Hon. Secretary Fish, I was re¬ 
moved from the Consulate at Beirut without ever even having 
the first opportunity to confront them face to face, or to answer 
in any manner to their foul charges and slanders before the 
State Department of my country. 

I will next week pay some special attention to the Mr. A. 
Debbas, the other perjurer against me, that the American 
people may know the man. 


LETTER No. XHI. 

ABDO DEBBAS. 

The language of Baraczi’s report relating to this man Debbas, 
aside from the allusions to him already published, is as follows: 

“About the same time Mr. A. Debbas, U. S. Consular Agent at 
Tarsus, arrived in Beirut in consequence of an invitation sent to 
him by Mr. Fisher in the month of August. As he says in the en¬ 
closed statement, Mr Fisher told him that a certain complaint 
which was to be made by a certain Horndon, the attorney of a Ding- 
well estate, was very serious, and that the question was exceedingly 
complicated, but that he was willing to examine the case. In order 
to do it he claimed fees for his legal advice. The amount claimed 
was gDoo. Mr. Debbas refused to pay such a sum, saying that he 
did not want Mr. Fisher’s advice at all. Then, according to the 
same statement, Mr. Fisher asked p£ioo for the confirmation of 
Mr. Debbas as Consular Agent, which the latter refused to give. 
The result was that Mr. Debbas left Mr. Fisher very angrily and 
wrote a letter to Rev. Mr. Calhoun, an American missionary, stating 
to him the same facts, and another letter to the U. S. Legation at 
Constantinople. 

Mr. Fisher, in his explanation, (inclosure No. 8) denies to have 
asked any sum at all. He asserts that Debbas voluntarily offered 

12 



90 


him legal fees, and plainly denies to have spoken at all of his con- 
hrmation as Consular Agent. 

In the case of Debbas, the Dingwell estate being a foreigner, and 
Mr. Debbas an American protege , the case would have had to be 
tried in the defendant’s court—that is, in the U. S. Consulate at 
Beirut. Mr. Fisher intended to act as a lawyer and judge at the 
same time.” 

Upon this very perspicuous exposition of the star chamber ex 
parte inquisition court—Baraczi being judge, jury, and prose¬ 
cuting attorney, as well as official reporter—I have to submit 
the following; remarks: 

1. The man was utterly ignorant of the Consular regulations 
and law in such cases. The cause could not be tried by me 
alone nor in my court at all. It was, as I have previously 
stated, beyond my personal jurisdiction, and, in my opinion, 
could only go before the Legation at Constantinople. 

2. It would have been a question whether Debbas could 
have been held at all under the circumstances as a lawful pro¬ 
tege of the United States Government at that time, independent 
of his declarations and agreement in taking the office after his 
reappointment by my predecessor with Capt. Dingwell, as be¬ 
fore related by me, and quoted from Debbas himself. He had 
been once dismissed from the Consular Agency at Tarsus by 
Mr. Hay on account of his notorious reputation, and then, a 
considerable time after—one year and nine months—for rea¬ 
sons and considerations best known to my predecessor and his 
mission fri.ends, he had been reinstated; but this proceeding 
had been carefully withheld from the knowledge of the State 
Department. All this, however, I had to discover by degrees 
as the knowledge of events unfolded. 

3. Certain it is that even when I saw Debbas in Beirut in 
October, 1874, his reinstatement as Consular Agent at Tarsus 
had not been acknowledged at the Department of State, and 
in the Official Register of the Department for that year his 
name and the Consular Agency at Tarsus are both omitted; 
and it is further certain that subsequently, while I was yet Con¬ 
sul, Minister Maynard, successor to Mr. Boker, refused juris¬ 
diction over him as a protege of the United States in a case 
brought against him for a large debt and some fraudulent 
transaction practiced on a firm of Beirut merchants represented 
by Janies Nixon, Esq., and that afterwards, on his refusal to 
recognize the case, the Consul of Greece, it was understood, 
took jurisdiction over him as a Greek subject, and rendered 
judgment against him for the whole amount of money claimed, 


91 


which, with costs, amounted to something about 125,000 pias¬ 
ters, a piaster being about three and seven-eighth cents of our 
money; or, more accurately, 26 J piasters being held equiva¬ 
lent to one dollar of our coin. 

How, I have already in this narrative stated the circum¬ 
stances under which I wrote to Debbas in relation to the con¬ 
versations of Mr. Horndon, the legal representative of the 
Ding well estate. At Debbas’ interview with me, October 6th, 
he commenced, as I afterwards discovered, with a series of 
minor prevarications, such as that “ he hoped to be excused for 
not sooner paying his personal respects; that he desired when 
he came to bring down with him his son, whom he wished to 
place in school, (a thing already done some time previously, 
as I was informed by Dr. Bustany, his master;) that he had only 
come down now at a considerable sacrifice at my special re¬ 
quest; having left his family, urgent business,” &c., &c., 
After these misrepresentations and the usual Arabic compli¬ 
ments, profuse and obsequious in all cases, especially in this 
class of neophites, I proceeded to explain to him in a gen¬ 
eral way in the presence of a third person, whose brother-in- 
law w r as the commercial agent of Mr. Horndon in Beirut, 
what Mr. Horndon had said to me. Debbas then said 
that he would be glad if I would look into his accounts, mem¬ 
orandums, and agreements in that matter. He then produced 
a large package of books, papers, and documents relating to 
the Dingwall estate and his copartnership, which he had brought 
with him from Tarsus. This package I received, and, after a 
short conversation, asked him to call again the next day, which 
he did. At this interview I distinctly informed him that the 
matters submitted to me were very important and apparently 
complicated, involving very large land transactions, mercantile 
business, and sums of money, loans, purchases, &c., &c.; that there 
were nice legal questions as to rights of co-partners, titles, ten¬ 
antry, collection of bills, exchange, fraud, &c., &c., and that if I 
were expected to give my attention to an examination of the case, 
and give legal advice or opinion, I would not do so without his 
divulging all the facts within his knowledge and his reposing in 
me the fullest confidence, and that not until then, and I could 
make the most careful examination of the law on the points 
involved, would I undertake to give any opinion, and that this 
was a matter of no little time, patience, and labor. Debbas 
spoke voluntarily and freely about paying me well for all my 
trouble. I did not ask any sum of money, but he talked largely 
as if he would be liberal, and did not mind almost any sum. 


92 


At this conversation not one word was said about his Consular 
Agency by removal from it, or any other person desiring it. 

Dehbas is reported to have grown wealthy out of the ad¬ 
vantages and monopolies of his official position, and probably 
this is not exaggerated. It is altogether probable that I made 
some allusion to this fact, but the thought of levying upon him 
or asking him for money for keeping him in office had never 
so much as occurred to me. I never spoke to him, or to any 
other man, about removing him or changing him. I never said 
anything about some other person wishing his office, for I knew 
no other person in Tarsus, or anywhere else, that would have 
the office. Neither Yenni nor any office was mentioned in 
connection with him. No man had ever offered me a penny 
or approached me as to the Consular office at Tarsus in any 
way, manner, or form whatever, and his whole statement in 
that regard is a shere, false, fabricated, and malicious aspersion 
and slander, intended and made to dovetail the Yenni matter. 
Debbas left my room that day promising to call again the next 
day, and, as I have before related, he did not call, but sent me 
the note which I have already published with the lie in it that 
he was too sick to call; yet the same day and the next day he was 
seen very actively engaged in ^earnest confidential talks with 
Edward A. Van Dyck and two of my dismissed Dragomans. 
And though he remained in Beirut untiLthe 14th October, I 
never saw him again. He had undoubtedly joined the con¬ 
spiracy which was then busily engaged day and night in pre¬ 
paring his and the Yenni perjuries to be sent to the Legation 
and to Washington. From that day onward I never wrote a 
word to or thought of him or his office till a copy of his alleged 
complaint sent from the Legation and presented by Baraczi 
was placed in my hands, December 9th, 1874. I had heard 
a flying rumor the day of his departure by steamer to Tarsus 
that I had wanted £200 of him to retain him in office; but this 
rumor I at once contradicted, saying I did not believe Debbas 
was fool enough to have made any such remark, utterly un¬ 
conscious of the part he was then playing in this foul and in 
famous plot and conspiracy. My present theory is, that when 
Debbas reached Beirut he was not aware of the machinations 
of the Van Dycks against me, but they and the dismissed 
Dragomans knew him , and very soon took him in hand, and 
showed him how much to his interest and advantage it might 
be, and probably would be, in his coming contest with Horn- 
don and the authorities to get me out of the way and Van 
Dyck in and trust his case to some more friendly "hand than 


'93 


mine might he, and that the dishonest, crafty, cunning nature 
of the man readily grasped at and acquiesced in the suggestion, 
for he well knew the importance of having friends at Court, 
especially the advantages of missionary influence in his behalf. 
Debbas’ statements about his poverty are well known to be 
false, while Horndon’s statements about the immense invest¬ 
ments in cash made by Capt. Ding well through this man Deb¬ 
bas, and the extensive transactions with which he was con¬ 
nected, are undoubted and known in Beirut and all alone; that 
coast. All this I prepared and furnished Mr. Boker while 
Minister at Constantinople, which he refers to in his note, al¬ 
ready published, of January 7, 1875; and, strange to say, the 
mail steamer that carried my dispatch to him Mr. Horndon ar¬ 
rived on at Beirut, called on me a few hurried moments, and 
went on her to Constantinople, with the promise to call at 
once at the Legation; but I never saw or heard from him 
again, probably because of my removal. 

The extraordinary revelation for the first time made known 
to me in this Baraczi Report in Washington, is that Debbas 
sent his statement as a letter “ first to the Rev. Mr. Calhoun 
at Abeih,” up in the Lebanon, twelve miles southeastward 
from Beirut, and then to the Legation at Constantinople! 
This, I believe, is false, but if it were true, it reveals the same 
strategy and cunning that directed Yenni’s complaint to Rev. 
Dr. Jessup in Beirut, and then translated it and sent it to the 
Legation ! The reason why it is false is, because it bears date 
Beirut, October 14, 1874, and was sent by the steamer of the 
next day, the 15th, to Constantinople; and the copy Baraczi 
exhibited to me, and which I now have a copy of, was alone 
directed to “ Ilis Excellency George H. Boker, Minister, &c., 
&c., &c.,” Mr. Calhoun’s name nowhere appearing with it. 
The statement that it was first sent to Mr. C. at Abeih was 
a part of the same afterthought that prepared the Yenni paper. 

It will also be marked by the reader that the Rev. Mr. Cal¬ 
houn, now deceased, unfortunately for me—for he could un¬ 
fold a tale in this connection that would bring the blush even 
to the face of these conspirators—was one of the few estimable 
men who despised and discountenanced this whole matter. 
Rev. Dr. Van Dyck and his son Edward, with Dr. George E. 
Post, asrain and ae;ain labored with Mr. Calhoun and his son, 
also Dr. Lewis, and Rev. Mr. Bird, to join in the indignation 
meeting—indeed importuned them most determinedly to do 
so, but they clearly, and with an emphasis that could not be 
mistaken, refused; and yet, to “ring in” the honored and 


94 


f vecl name of Mr. Oalhoun in connection with this infamous 
treachery and defamation, to give it respectability and char¬ 
acter, as if he had something to do with it, they have this crea¬ 
ture Debbas, Baraczi says, first send his statement to him ! It? 
is a libel and a piece of hypocracy and strategy that only a 
Syrian ever would have concocted. If Mr. Calhoun were now 
in this world he would lash these rascals to their heart’s con¬ 
tent ! 

Debbas, in his remarkable complaint, further states that “ he 
has for twelve years uninterruptedly and honorably served the 
Government of the United States in the capacity of Consular 
Affent.” But he forgot to mention that he had been dismissed 

O O 

the service by Mr. Hay, and was out of office nearly two 
vears—one-sixth of his boasted time—and also forgot to* 
explain the means by which his reinstatement had been brought 
about! Mr. Horudon charges him with having cheated and 
swindled Capt. Dingwell, and the heirs of his estate, out of 
between forty and fifty thousand pounds sterling, of which fact 
no one who knows anything about the matter has a doubt, and 
denounces him as a most “ unmitgated scoundrel and accom¬ 
plished swindler.” 

In fact, Debbas belongs to the same class so vividly de¬ 
scribed by the English writer already quoted. He is a suitable 
companion of the Christian convert Yenni, whose motive in 
embracing Christianity is at least one of practical sagacity in 
his case. He holds his official position by reason of his profes¬ 
sion. He is the special friend of certain influential if not 
monied missionaries, and under cover of that specialty has 
money to use to a certain extent, if not loan for them. He 
has long been known as a money operator and lender, and by 
common reputation is called a hard man—who makes money 
by grinding his creditors when in his pow r er, by usury when 
he can negotiate with impunity, and by sharp practice when¬ 
ever opportunity offers. He makes all he can both out of his 
money and his official position, and Debbas is like unto him in 
all respects, though without doubt the more unprincipled and un¬ 
scrupulous of the two. But these are the two instruments par¬ 
ticularly selected by the conspirators to defame me, and crush 
me before the Legation and Department of State ! And I re¬ 
peat it, they were the only two out of twelve Consular Agents 
that could be induced to say I intended to sell their offices. 
Strange I did not serve the whole of them in the same way ! 

The public indignation meeting of the conspirators had 
turned out a sad failure—twenty-two American gentlemen, res- 


'95 


idents in Syria, had refused to be present at it—Messrs. Cal¬ 
houn, Dr. Lewis and Bird with the Haifa colonists to counte¬ 
nance it at all—as Mr. Boker expressed it—(it is worth repeat¬ 
ing)—“ the corpse was not ready for the funeral!” and hence it 
was that these two falsifiers and perjurers—special friends of 
Edward A. Van Dyck and his missionary co-workers—were 
seized upon and undoubtedly suborned to swear falsely and 
maliciously against me, that there might he a plausible cause 
made out for my removal that “ Edward” might get in ! A 
more glaring, infamous and daring outrage never disgraced 
the conduct of any conspiracy. 

It is very evident that if Baraczi knew anything about our 
laws and regulations of Consular service, he should have known 
that his statement that in Debhas’ case I “intended ” to he both 
lawyer and judge, was an absurdity on its face. By statute— 
as I have already shown—sections 4,088 and 4,1C 7—the 
amount involved exceeded my personal jurisdiction; and under 
Consular Regulations, 1874, section 13, his term of office, (with¬ 
out re-appointment by myself,) would have expired when I 
would have no judicial power over him to hear or decide any 
suit whatever against him; besides, his agreement and cove¬ 
nants “ not to adv or seek American protection in his business 
settled that; and that I attempted or thought of acting in the 
double capacity alleged, could only have originated in the happy 
brain of a Van Dyck, or of one who was acting that part al¬ 
ready, or was either a most consummate knave or a legal fool. 
It was an utter impossibility for me to act as judge and at¬ 
torney. 

It seems very clear now to me, and doubtless will to most 
readers, that Baraczi came to Beirut with hypocracy in his 
heart, and deception on his tongue. That he had his cm to go 
by, it were folly to deny. He expressed for me the highest 
and most ardent consideration, and insisted on my going with 
him to investigate the difficulty at Latakia; also to Damascus; 
and to visit on our return the wonderful ruins of Baalbec. 
While in Beirut he over and over again led me to believe that 
he should make no report unfavorable to me, certainly not 
against me. He freely said to me before my wife and family 
“ he knew Consular Clerk Van Dyck had lied to him over and 
over again about me he knew “ the Dodge letter was a ma¬ 
lignant and shameful defamation and libel,” and that “ he be¬ 
lieved every act and report against me by sympathizing mis¬ 
sionaries was false, malicious, and in the interest of making 
Van Dyck Consul,” or, “ of controlling the appointment to 


96 


that Consulate ” The story that Edward A. Van Dyck was; 
only an applicant for the Consulate at Swatow, China, is, I 
believe, entirely untrue, and another afterthought, after, as al¬ 
ready stated, it had been tendered to (unsought by) Mr. Hay, 
and refused by him , and was fabricated as a 44 blind leader of 
the blind !” 

And it was clearly an afterthought, for never did I hear 
of it until I read it in Baraczi’s Report, and the Depart¬ 
ment records will not show him an applicant until Mr. Hay 
had returned to the United States and declined Swatow, 
Besides, I can establish the fact that he not only wanted but 
expected the Beirut Consulate by more than twenty witnesses. 
It too had been determined and counted upon by his father 
and special missionary friends, and they did not mean he 
should be defeated. Baraczi told us one day at mv table, in 
presence of five witnesses besides myself, that he had that day 
said to Van Dyck “ that if by any possibility I should lie ex¬ 
changed or removed from Beirut, he (Van Dyck) would not 
get it, but most likely Mr. Dellaas, of Jerusalem, w 7 ould be 
sent there,” and then when he said that, that 44 Van Dvek 
turned as pale as death, and could not say a word.” This was 
but three days before he left the city. 

While Baraczi and mvself were ridins' side by side from 
Baalbec to Stouri, on the Damascus road, he took occasion to 
say in the presence of Mr. Tabet, 44 Well, Fisher, there is one 
thing I would do so soon as this matter is all disposed of, and 
that is, I would remove the Yennis and Debbas the first act I 
did, and so effectually that that mil be the end of them for 
good and all.” This was December 29, 1874, and will not be 
denied. 

Before leaving Beirut I had prepared as best I could without 
law books to consult, three cases to be tried—one against Rev. 
Dr. C. V. A. Van Dyck, one against Dr. George E. Post, and 
one against Edward A. Van Dyck, Consular Clerk. The latter 
case coming, as I view the law, under the jurisdiction of Minis¬ 
ter Maynard at Constantinople—not my successor in office—I 
first sent the complaint to the Legation; but Minister Maynard 
not concurring in my opinion, and misapprehending his juris¬ 
diction, returned the case for trial in the Consular Court of 
Beirut. I determind then to press these cases civilly and crimi¬ 
nally, and over and over again besought Consul Edgar that 
their hearing might go on. But the object of the conspiracy 
had, so far as I was personally concerned, been accomplished, 
and every appeal of mine for justice at the Consulate, the Lega- 


07 


tion, and the Department of State was met by postponement, 
indifference, or silence. I was neither to be heard, counte¬ 
nanced, or heard at home nor abroad. My case was fiat ac¬ 
compli. 

In closing this article I now adduce the following letter of 
Mr. Ilabeeb Tsaggiar, who on various occasions kindly acted 
as my interpreter, and was one of the very few persons who 
welcomed my arrival at Beirut with any seeming degree of 
generous honesty—a naturalized citizen'of the United States 
(really born under the flag of our country), having his certifi¬ 
cate of naturalization from a United States court, and a pass¬ 
port from the Hon. Secretary Fish himself, but shamelessly and 
corruptly denied all recognition as such citizen and protection 
by Edward A. Van Dyck, Acting Consul, pending my arrival, 
and grossly insulted and intrigued against by him with the 
local Turkish authorities—an act alone that ought to have 
caused his immediate removal—well known to Secretary Fish 
and the Legation at Constantinople—-whose honored father for 
thirty years had been first Dragoman of the Beirut Consulate 
with signal ability and fidelity, and on whose decease Mr. 
Ilabeeb succeeded in office for three years, and then migrated 
to the United States in 1867, but had returned to Beirut in 
May, 1874, for the only purpose of effecting a final settlement 
of his father’s estate and getting the remainder due him ot his 
rightful inheritance, handed me under date “Beirut, Syria, 
January 21, 1876,” will be read with interest in this connec¬ 
tion, and needs no further comment by me: 

“ Hon. Colonel Fisher: 

Dear Sir: When Mr. Baraczi, 2d Dragoman of the United 
States Legation at Stamboul, came to Beirut to investigate alleged 
violations of American rights and domicile by Turkish soldiers 
near Latakia, as he publicly stated, and incidentally to make some 
inquiries about certain reports against yourself, instigated, he in¬ 
formed me and others (and I know personally to be true) by cer¬ 
tain American missionaries, together with Mr. Edward A Van 
Dyck, Consular Clerk, Esper Schucairand other discharged Drago¬ 
mans, you subsequently read me a copy of a statement purporting 
to be made by Abdo Debbas, Consular Agent of the United States 
at Tarsus, and of Mr. Antonio Yenni, Consular Agent of the 
United States at Tripoli, both dependents of your Consulate juris¬ 
diction. I have the honor to say to you— 

1st. That the statements of Mr. Debbas and Mr. Yenni as to 
your demanding money of them, or either of them, by or through 
myself or in my presence to retain their offices, was untrue, and 

13 


98 


th&t while I was present no such proposition was made by you in 
any form whatever. 

2d. That when Debbas affects to describe my appearance and 
person, and pretends not to know my name, he falsifies every word 
he says, because he has known me from boyhood; also when I was 
Consular Dragoman after the decease of my father. 

3d. As regards Mr. Yenni, I believe I was with Mr. George 
Yenni, son of Antonio Yenni, and who speaks English, present at 
all or nearly all your interviews, and that together we acted as your 
interpreters (you not speaking Arabic and Mr. A. Yenni not speak¬ 
ing English), and I can only repeat / never heard you ask of Mr. 
Yenni any money for his continuance in office, and to my recollec¬ 
tion nothing whatever was said by you in regard to change or re¬ 
moval of his agency, or any other, except as after mentioned. 

Mr. A. Yenni also did beg you to get for him his son’s firman 
for Hums and Hamath (long withheld by the Ottoman authorities), 
and voluntarily offered to pay you for it. He also in my presence 
offered to pay you money to have transferred from Tripoli to the 
jurisdiction of the Mixed Commercial Court of Beirut a very im¬ 
portant suit against Achmed Sultan, of Tripoli; and if my recollec¬ 
tion serves me it was for about 300,000 piasters, more or less, and 
told you he would pay you for all your trouble, and you distinctly 
told him you would attend to it for him whenever the papers were 
submitted to you and good grounds appeared for such transfer. 

I also well remember his saying to you “ he knew Mr. Matheny, 
the Consular Agent at Latakia, was going to resign, as he under¬ 
stood and believed,” and that “ he would, if he could have the 
privilege of naming his successor, give not less than to do 

so;” and that you distinctly and emphatically told him you did 
not know anything about such business, and did not believe such 
report. 

4th. I would state that I have not made this statement before to 
you (in writing) because you have always told me you did not wish 
any statement until made in open court, or on a full and fair in¬ 
vestigation that might be ordered at your request, or as a witness 
in certain prosecutions that probably might grow out of your re¬ 
moval from office. You further stated to me you supposed and 
believed your own statements furnished the Legation through Mr. 
Baraczi sufficient, with what I had stated to him, without further 
statement or evidence to refute both the statements of Mr. Debbas 
and Mr. Yenni, as Mr. Baraczi stated ‘he did not believe a word of 
their statements,’ that ‘ he knew Mr. Debbas was a notorious liar,’ 
and ‘ he did not believe his statements at all.’ 

I further make this statement now because you state to me you 
possibly may soon be able to leave Beirut, and I deem it only justice 
to you that you should have my statement for use (and I am ready 
to swear to it) in the event of my death, or also soon leaving Beirut 


to return to the United States, as you know I desire to do, and 
may never see you again. 

I remain, honored sir, your most true and respectful, humble 
obedient servant, 

(Signed.) H. Naggiar.” 

I intend in my next to pay my particular respects to Mr. 
Secretary Fish. 


LETTER No. XIV. 

MR. HAMILTON FISH. 

Of course I have no need to inform the public of this country 
who Mr. Hamilton Fish is. It is history that he was a number 
of years Senator of the great State of New York; also its 
Governor, and for nearly eight years Secretary of State under 
President Grant. He has long been known as a very wealthy 
man, and moved among merchant princes and moneyed men 
of New York city. We have already seen his adverse influ¬ 
ence, confessed by himself, in the Senate of the United States- 
while Secretary of State, against the bill which was intended 
for my relief, appropriating the small sum of $2,500, which 
v^ould not have begun to cover even half of what I lost in the 
great fire at Yokohama, Japan, November 26, 1866. While 
many Senators, and even Senator Sumner of Massachusetts* 
then Chariman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 
who at first opposed it, subsequently were willing to give me 
the amount named (the bill for that sum having passed the 
House of Representatives), Mr. Hamilton Fish, the proud aristo¬ 
crat, out of a pure arbitrary will, persistently opposed it, with 
no other pretext in the world than what might be urged against 
any reimbursement this Government has ever made to any of 
its citizens. This was the beginning of his opposition to me, 
and in taking such ground against me, knowing at the same 
time that the Governments of Great Britain, France, Prussia, 
Holland, and even the little kingdom of Portugal had reim¬ 
bursed, not only their Consuls, but every attache for all their 
individual losses by the same fire, he represented the spirit of 
partiality and injustice which tends so strongly to destroy all 
patriotism, all attachments to a Government professedly of the 
people and for the people. What will men come to care for a 
Government that does not protect them in their rights of per¬ 
son, property, and good name; that arbitrarily denies them 
the plainest justice, the commonest Magna Charta rights, and 
goes trampling under foot without hearing or regarding the 



100 


dearest interests of individuals ? It is in this light this man 
represented this great Government to me. He was left in the 
undisturbed enjoyment of his fat salary, which, by the way, he 
did not need; and all the while he was guilty of more mean 
things, more arbitrary and outrageous acts, more violations of 
law, and more gross neglect of duty and breaches of official 
faith and courtesy than I could have thought of in the whole 
course of my natural life. His partiality and favoritism are 
unquestionable, indeed they are notorious. In proof of this I 
propose to give here and there a glimpse of his unwarrantable, 
unlawful, and despotic conduct, not one-twentieth part of which 
will probably ever be brought to light. 

1. I have already detailed his mean violation of law, and 
his niggard and illegal construction of its requisitions, by which 
he wronged me out of my lawful compensation sixteen days 
“awaiting instructions” and nineteen days’ salary in “transit 
to post of duty,” making a law ex post facto and retroactive out 
of pure spite. This honest debt of the Government to me I 
have not to this day been able to collect. Mr. Fish, by a mere 
stroke of his pen, just as much robbed me of these items as if 
a highwayman had taken it by force, and to-day I have not 
the respect for him in this matter that I would have for a mid- 
night # burglar, who, perhaps impelled by hunger or cold, should 
break into and rifle my house. 

2. He was compelled to remove my predecssor at the request 
of the Turkish Government for a clear violation of treaty right 
and stipulation; and yet because Mr. Hay was a personal friend 
of the Beirut missionaries, or the friend of somebody in America 
who was a personal friend of the Secretary, or because the 
friends of Mr. Ha} 7 were faithful churchmen—Mr. Fish him¬ 
self being a faithful churchman—he manifested the most 
special and guarded consideration for Mr. Hay, and tendered 
him unasked the earliest consolation of the Consulate at Swatow, 
in China, which Mr. Hay, however, declined. What a differ¬ 
ence it makes with such a nabob who it is he takes under his 
sheltering wing! And he actually had the audacity to keep me 
waiting a whole month in Washington, dancing attendance 
upon his mighty will and pleasure, after my confirmation by the 
Senate, under the absurd pretext that his friend, Mr. Ha} 7 , must 
be provided for first, although at the very time he knew Mr. 
Hay was on the sea on his way back to the United States under 
complaint from the Turkish Government itself for maladmin¬ 
istration in office; yet the noble Secretary treated him with 
the greatest delicacy and forbearance, and gave him a conge , 


101 


or leave of absence, from the Consulate at Beirut, liis pay 
going on all the while, even if two months en route , while I 
was paying my own expenses, and the Hon. Mr. Fish was 
looking him up another easy place at the earliest day possible. 
And tlien ? it will scarcely be believed, March 25, 1876, he 
gave this same man, so removed for cause at Beirut, the author 
of the deceit I have uncovered as to his number of Dragoman 
(purposely never reported by him to the Department of State) 
the office of Consular Clerk, and assigned him to duty in the 
Turkish dominion, under the Ivhedive, at Cairo in Egypt. 
Now t look on this picture, then on that. See his treatment of 
my predescessor and then look at his treatment of myself! 
What a difference there was in a name! 

8. After I had arrived in Beirut I sent the Secretary a frank 
and straightforward account of matters just as I found them . 
I reported eight subordinates at that post and twelve Consular 
Agents in the country. After most careful and painstaking 
inquiry I had changed three honorary Dragomans, replacing 
one of them by the re-appointment of Mr. Ayoub Tabet, whom 
Mr. Hay had turned out for reasons I will not now pause to 
detail, and dispatched a report of the same to the State Depart¬ 
ment, not dreaming what a state of things I was then and 
there innocently going to uncover. 

Mr. Fish in liis reply directed my attention to the fact “that 
my predecessor had reduced the number of Dragomans to one , 
and that it was not necessary for me to have more.” My atten¬ 
tion was called to “ the dispatches of Mr. Hay upon this sub¬ 
ject,” and I was asked for explanations “why I had increased 
the number to four ! ” The fact was, on taking charge of the 
Consulate I found four Dragomans and five Cavasses or Jani¬ 
zaries, all appointed or re-appointed by Mr. Hay, although he 
had reported the appointment of but one of each to the Depart¬ 
ment of State—and on further examination I found my prede¬ 
cessor had both removed and made appointments at the so¬ 
licitation and with the knowledge and approval of certain 
missionaries named and not named, and all within three months 
of the dates of bis despatches No. 69 and 14, to which my at¬ 
tention was called as above—as precedents for my guidance, 
and which appointments had, as I have stated, never been re¬ 
ported by Mr. Hay to the Department of State, as the law and 
Consular regulations require; and when this violation of law 
and trickery was exposed and reported by me to the Secre¬ 
tary, neither he nor any other officer of the Department took 
any notice of it whatever! The duplicity and deception of 


mv predecessor, known and approved, as the despatches them¬ 
selves show, by certain missionaries in Beirut, was all right— 
my honesty was the only roguery ! I committed a grave error- 
in exposing the acts of the Honorable Secretary’s protege, and 
this was the character of the head of the Department of State- 
in that branch of the foreign service of our boasted Republican 
Government, I leave the matter where I found it, only re¬ 
marking that every Consulate at Beirut had then and still has 
each four Dragomans and four Janizaries or cavasses or guards¬ 
men from the little Kingdoms of Greece and Denmark to 
Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Austria, Spain, 
Sweden and Norway, Persia, and now the United States. It 
was evident my predecessor found it incompatible with the 
public business and the prestige of the office, and inconvenient 
and disagreeable to have less staff officials than his colleagues,, 
if for no other reasons; and, after reducing his force by turn¬ 
ing out Mr. Tabet and two others, including the Rev. Dr. 
Bustany, the most learned and best native Syrian Christian I 
know of, reported his economy and 44 reform” to the Depart¬ 
ment of State for approval and commendation, but singularly 
forgot to mention that having got rid of these men, three 
Dragomans, and reported that 44 only one was necessary,” had 
immediately afterwards appointed three others, who, with the 
one office Dragoman retained, made four , all of whom were 
the men I found in office on my arrival at Beirut, and retained 
until September 9,1874, when I made the changes that stirred 
up the missionary ire ! and unwittingly, as the poet Sidney has 
it, uncovered 

A conspiracy in all heavenly and earthly things I 

that made a row indeed. 

It would require much space to insert the full text of these 
numerous despatches in relation to the number of subordi¬ 
nates proper to be appointed at the Consulate. I have con¬ 
sequently given only the substance of what transpired, so as to 
show the honorable Secretary Fish in his true light. 

I received a despatch from the Department of State, under 
date of January 15 , 1875, in relation to the increase of my 
subordinates, which Mr. Fish must have assumed I had been 
making. To this I replied, under date of February 10, 1875, 
that so far from making an increase in the number, I had re¬ 
fused, up to that time, to till certain vacancies of cavasses and 
dragomans which had occurred at the Consular Agencies ; and 
I also went over the ground, showing what I had found to be 



103 


the actual existing state of things on my taking charge of the 
Consulate, and I closed this despatch in the following words and 
terms : 

“ I shall regret extremely the non-approval of my action, done 
•only in the best possible faith, following the precedent as to the 
number before me—doing just what Mr. Hay had done, notwith¬ 
standing his despatches—keeping pace with my colleagues, and only 
acting in the best interests of the service of my Government.” 

Two days after this I sent a supplementary despatch to the 

Department of State—smarting, I confess, a little at getting 

no answers to my repeated appeals to the Department for 

charges against myself, and commenting on the extraordinary 

course I had discovered of the missionaries in reference to my 

«/ 

official acts and prerogatives of office, and more carefully ex¬ 
plaining the true situation of affairs, concluding as follows : 

“ May I not hope, therefore, the Honorable Secretary of State 
will reconsider the suggestion contained in dispatch No. 21, and 
permit, me to retain the Dragomans as I have appointed them?” 
<&c., &c. 

Meanwhile, a desprtch, under date of February 17, 1875, 
came from the Department in relation specialty to the appoint¬ 
ment of Mr. Avoub Tabet, which showed counter influences 
and undercurrents were busily at work to pervert and misrep¬ 
resent my action in his case particularly, as well as in regard 
to the other appointments. To this I respectfully replied in a 
despatch under date of March 31, 1875, still further explain¬ 
ing the situation, with quotations from Minister Boker, par¬ 
ticularly giving his views of Mr. Tabet—of his unjust removal 
by Mr. Hay—that he was favorable to Mr. TVs reappointment , 
approved it, .and showing that no new business had been done 
or was contemplated or proposed to be commenced at my 
Consulate for him, and this dispatch I concluded in the fol¬ 
lowing language: 

“ My object in changing only three appointments—Dragomans—- 
out of upwards of fifty appointments in this Consular jurisdiction, 
that I have the right to make or change (including Consular Agents, 
Cavasses and Dragomans,) on my arrival here, has been shamefully 
and cruelly maligned and misrepresented, and I am still compelled 
to occupy a position of uncertainty in the mind of this community 
as to my Government sustaining my course or notin relation there¬ 
to. This is not only anomalous but so extraordinary and annoy- 


mg that I ought to be relieved of it, or of my office, without fur 
ther delay,” &c. 

To these respectful appeals, Mr. Secretary Fish deigned no 
reply—not a word. He cloaked himself in the dignity—was 
it dignity ?—of silence—and proceeded by another method to 
undermine and remove me. 

4. Again, in the matter of my complaints on the outrageous 
and repeated insulting insubordination of Consular Clerk Van 
Dyck to his superior officer, so palpable and undeniable, Mr. Sec¬ 
retary Fish took no steps to have him investigated and removed. 
The young man’s friends in Beirut and Few York were too 
powerful. They held the Secretary by the ear, and he trimmed 
his sail to their wind. I heard privately from Mr. Boker that 
the Secretary had sent a reprimand to Y T an Dyck, but what it 
was, or what its terms, I know not, as no copy or notice of it 
ever came officially through or to me from the Department or 
the Legation; and to this day this young man has been re- 
tained undisturbed in office, being first transferred to Constan¬ 
tinople, and, I believe, now sent to the Egyptian Consulate 
General and Agency at Cairo, while Mr. Hay has been trans¬ 
ferred to Liverpool, England, and I am still not in Consular 
service ! Can such conduct on the part of Mr. Secretary Fish, 
because he was Secretary of State, be contemplated without a 
rising sense of deep and just indignation ? 

5. But the great case made against me at the State Depart¬ 
ment was the treatment of Madame Emma Beauboueher. I 
have already detailed the facts and some of the law in this 
case. The Secretary, by denying to me Consular and legal ju¬ 
risdiction of this case, not only trampled on the law and the 
usage in all our Consular courts, but caused a most frivolous 
and insulting despatch to be sent to me, which concluded by 
saying the case was “ too grave to be tampered with by me ! ” 
At that very moment, and in that very act, he himself was thereby 
tampering with the plain laws of his country, bidding defiance 
to justice, insulting virtue and the plain rights and prerogatives 
of his subordinate—he was setting aside the authority of his 
distinguished predescessor, Secretary Seward, President Lin¬ 
coln, and the thirty-seventh Congress, (see Ex. Doc. Fo. 25, 
3rd session, 37th Congress,) and the Consular regulations and 
rules as established for the Consular Courts in Turkey, pro¬ 
claimed by Minister E. Joy Morris, and re-affirmed and ap¬ 
proved bg himself for the Consular Courts of China in 1874, and 
ruling with the arbitrary recklessness of a despot worthy of the 



105 


dark ages. He was committing high-handed and summary 
acts for which he richly merited certain impeachment. Secretary 
Fish went free, however, because he was on the side of power, 
and there was no man strong and willing enough to bring him 
to justice while his prostrate victim was helpless—nay, almost 
driven to despair and hopeless in a far distant country. Sec¬ 
retary Fish talks of dishonesty and corruption —he prate of 
bargain and sale—of misfeasance or malfesance in office, 
when he himself was the chief offender against the laws and 


muniments of truth and justice! The consequence of his 
criminal oppression and arbitrary action was disastrous to my 
future, and fatal and crushing to the prospects of a most esti¬ 
mable and cruelly wronged woman who has suffered all things 


with heroic courage, and was for a time under the malign 
spell of the clique of conspirators and missionary hypocrites, 
yet finally saw the case as it really was and entirely and un¬ 
reserved lv exhonorated me from every blame in the matter. 
The only thins; I have to resrret in this case, is, that I did not 
repudiate at once the arrogance and usurpation of a petty ty¬ 
rant clothed with brief authority, and go on and try her di¬ 
vorce, as I undoubtedly had a right to do, irrespective of his 
tampering edict. It would then perhaps have made an issue 
which would have compelled all these persons to come forth 
from their hiding places and show themselves in their true 
characters to the world. Yo wonder American justice and 
honor between this ex-Secretary of State, missionary machi- 
mations, the scoundrelism of ex-Consul Beauboucher and this 
renewed betrayal of this estimable lady, and the trickery and 
the conspiracy of the Van Dycks, and the continuation in 
office of such men as Debbas and Yenni, bas become a by¬ 
word and reproach among the better classes of people in Beirut 
and the Lebanon. 

6. Again I charge Mr. ex-Secretary Fish with having joined 
a deliberate and wanton conspiracy against me, fomented by 
my subordinate in office with some of the missionaries in 
Beirut, and abetted by other persons to him well known, un- 
j ustly effected against me. lie it was who instigated the Legation 
at Constantinople to send down, not a citizen of the United 
States, but a Hungarian spy, ignorant of all our laws, to stab 
me in the hack while at the very moment he was daily 
breaking bread at my table ! This person was with Mr. Fish, 
rightful judge, clerk of court, prosecuting attorney and trav¬ 
erse j ury ! And Secretary Fish pretended that I then had 
« my trial,” as he pompously and superciliously styles it: and 


14 


106 


then he receives the secret, star-chamber, ex parte report, which 
is enough on its very face, with its evidence of self-contradic¬ 
tion in several places, unpardonable assumption and ignorance 
of jurisdiction and law, extravagance of language, repetition of 
calumny and general untruthfulness, to sink it in a sea of in¬ 
famy by its own weight. On the strength of this document, 
without even so much as giving me notice that he had* it, with 
no certain knowledge that lie had it until upwards of six 
months after it had done its mission work, and which I never 
could get a copy of until I came in person and paid so much per 
one hundred words for to the chief clerk of the State Depart¬ 
ment July 28, 1876, with no warning, no sign, no response, 
no opportunity of explanation, denial or defense; no advice 
from the Department or Legation whatever, (an unheard of 
outrage,) he summarily removes me from office and fills the 
place with a man well known to the New York friends—a re* 
lation of one of them, and a boon companion of the Beirut 
conspirators ! Of this man, no civil service examination is re¬ 
quired, no waiting, no delay. lie is nominated, confirmed, 
and bonded in three days, instead of three months, receives 
his thirty days pay “ waiting instructions,” and arranges for 
transportation of his goods and chattels through the Despatch 
Agency (a less quantity of which cost me $178 gold to send 
via Savannah, Ga., to Beirut) to his post of duty, free of all 
expense ! And all this is under the boasted rules of civil ser¬ 
vice reform ! Is this not one most eminent instance of the 
sham and hypocraey of “ civil service reform” administered 
by Secretary Fish ? But he was in the chief conspiracy against 
me, and promptly and effectually did he perform his part. 

Right here note—let any man of sound practical sense take 
the Baraczi Report just as it is and analize it; he will find— 
1st. That there is no legal proof in it. 2d. That it is a mass 
of generalities and mere suppositions. 3d. That it is all based 
on rumors, intentions, reports of Edward A. Van Dyck and 
his confreres , and hearsay alone, except what, as he distinctly 
affirms, reposes on the maliciousness of his father, Rev. Dr. Van 
Dyck. In fact, it reflects more severely on certain missionaries 
and Edward A. Van Dyck than myself, though it is clear he was 
the convenient tool and instrument in the hands of the Secre¬ 
tary to accomplish his fell purpose. 

7. I also charge Mr. Fish with continuous violations of his 
obligations and neglect of official duty in permitting Consul 
John T. Edgar and Consular Clerk Edward A. Van Dyck to 
continue in their respective offices unchallenged and undis- 


107 


turbed after having certain knowledge of their gross derelic¬ 
tion of duty and official corruption in office that cannot he 
impeached. I have already shown the specific charges made 
against Van Dyck, and filed in the Consulate, at the Legation 
and at the Department of State, and of his falsehood and per¬ 
jury about not wanting the Beirut Consulate, being an appli¬ 
cant for the Swatow (China) Consulate, which the State De¬ 
partment records will show ; all which no notice was ever taken 
of but one of silence or evasion. 

As to my successor in office, Mr. Secretary Fish knew from 
indisputable proof that he had not been in charge oi the Bei-' 
rut Consulate three weeks before he exacted upwards of $100 
gold in so-called “ notarial fees” in one transaction from the 
firm of Messrs. Wm. Black & Co., on the American bark 
“ Chief,” consigned to them, in a transaction that I should 
never have thought of charging exceeding $25 for, thereby at 
one stroke supplementing his salary in that amount, many 
times the sum I had received as “ notarial ” or “ unofficial ” 
fees during my entire term of office. Mr. Fish also had cer- 
tain knowledge of his office Dragoman’s salary being supple¬ 
mented by him for the quarters ending September 30 and De¬ 
cember 31, 1875, and by pretended employment of an extra 
clerk, an illiterate boy of only 14 years of age, (his own son,) 
then daily in attendance as a student of the “ Syrian Protestant 
College,” not doing one iota of work in the Consular office, 
drew salary for him at $300 per annum, when, by a law of 
Congress, neither the President nor a Cabinet officer could 

L) 7 

appoint any person to a clerkship in Government service un¬ 
der the age of 18 years. Secretary Fish, being a Cabinet offi¬ 
cer, violated the statute every day he paid this salary and con¬ 
tinued this pupil of the “ 4 Syrian Protestant College” in office; 
and he did this for months and months after he knew he was 
violating law. 

Secretary Fish also knew from undoubted sources that Mr. 
Consul Edgar was guilty of a ffigh-handed false imprisonment 
of an American citizen for ten days, condemned upon evidence 
by perjury, if not bribery, so clear and palpable that the Con¬ 
sul, acting as judge, in open court, proposed to shield the per¬ 
jurer by striking his sworn testimony from the records of the 
court, and would have done so but for the interposition of the 
defendant’s attorney. And it is now a well known fact that 
shortlv afterwards this case was compromised and settled, with 
other aggravated complications growing out of it through the 


108 


intrigues of Consular Clerk Van Dyck, and no one better than 
the Consul and parties know on what terms. 

Mr. Secretary Fish also had undoubted information that 
could not be impeached of an illegal and fraudulent importa¬ 
tion of fire-arms—sixty pairs of revolvers—-seen and actually 
known by several persons, among them the Rev. Dr. Henry 
II. Jessup’s own son, who acknowledged before his father that 
he had seen them, what was said, and that he was told 44 not to 
tell any one, not even his father, what he had seen.” These 
arms were smuggled in the center of a large cask or hogshead, 
invoiced and addressed to John T. Edgar, U. S. Consul to 
Beirut, from Paris, by M. M. Dubisson, shipped by the Messar- 
cjeries Maratimes , landed at Beirut January 11th, and delivered 
at the Consulate January 12th, 1876, as 44 china and glassware,” 
in gross violation of law and treaty. The Cavasses that opened 
them, end delivered them at a certain place after dark say 
there were in all 260 revolvers. It is also a matter of notoriety 
that a false invoice was exhibited to cover up this outrage 
of comity, right, and to avoid duties, when made known, if it 
should be, and that Edward A. Van Dyck and missionary 
friends knew of this transaction, as well as other malfeasances 
and wrongs, and have specially hushed them up from first to 
last. 44 Verily,” as one gentleman at Beirut connected with 
the mission work said, 44 some men may steal a horse, and it is 
all right; but if you were to look at one over a fence it would be 
a crime, indeed ! ” There were acts now done which, if I had 
ever thought of doing, would have justly condemned me to in¬ 
famy as a criminal, indeed. And all these acts and doings 
were known to, winked at, suppressed, and covered up, by 
these 44 pure missionaries” and Edward A. Van Dyck, who 
had verily 44 strained at a gnat,” but now could 44 swallow a 
camel,” and who hesitated or scrupled at nothing, howsoever 
villainous, to persecute me—trumped-up prosecutions of suits 
and perjured complaints, to justify their own infamous acts 
and calumnies, because, 1st, the man who does them is my 
successor; because, 2d, they found in him a ready and conve¬ 
nient instrument to carry out their purposes; and because, 3d, 
he in turn screens them from prosecution before his court and 
the penalties of violated law. And this was the favored Con¬ 
sul of Mr. Secretary Fish, who is so horrified at what he shame¬ 
lessly, without a scintilla of honest proof whatever, calls my 
criminality, yet is so complacent in his own and that of his 
friends and favorites. The annals of no civilized Government, 
no administration, from Washington to Ilayes, will show such 


109 


venality and corruption, such personal favoritism, such perfidi¬ 
ous chicanery. It was a disgrace to him that he cannot shake 
off; that will attach to his name forever, not so much on ac¬ 
count of ni}' own losses and sufferings as on account of the un¬ 
generous, unscrupulous, and base uses and prostitution he made 
of his high office. 

I might adduce many other proofs of the bad heart and the 
bad faith of Mr. Secretary Fish—were Gov. Buckingham, Sen¬ 
ator Sumner, and Mr. Motley alive, they would speak—Hon. 
John Jay’s voice is still heard among us—of his arrogance, in¬ 
justice, meanness; of his positive disregard of the laws of his 
•country; the most sacred rights of his subordinates—while he 
was at the head of the Department of State. If not suppressed, 
there are folios upon folios of charges against certain high offi¬ 
cials under the whole administration of Mr. Fish in the State 
Department that he never paid the least attention to, while the 
most indisputable proof in another notorious case was utterly 
ignored, that his favorite might have place and power. But I 
forbear. 

After my return to ‘Washington, I, of course, sought in every 
way to obtain from Mr. Fish some measure of redress. He 
well knew I had been wronged. The second time I saw him 
he confessed to me “ too many letters have been written,” re- 
ferring specially to Mr. Bokerthat he “ was satisfied that a 
measure of injustice had been done me,” and “ that the wrongs 
should be righted.” But this was simply diplomatic gush, only 
made to keep me quiet; a vain promise, I am now convinced, 
as hollow, false, and hypocritical as all of the rest of his con¬ 
duct to me had been, and I dismiss him to the contemplation 
of the public with the brand of a dishonest official on his brow. 
For can jeers, nor ridicule, nor lofty character, nor pride, nor 
wealth efface it, while the Ethiopean cannot change his skin 
nor the Leopard his Spots. 

In this connection I have but a word or two in relation to 
the instrument man, (Baraczi,) a fit tool for the business he 
was expected to do ; a neophite, indeed, of the Y enni-Debbas 
kind ; a species of parrot in languages peculiar to the Orient, 
with a genius for chicanery, heartless, irresponsible, and venal—- 
who, as soon as the work of his report was accomplished, dis¬ 
appeared from Constantinople and employment at the Legation, 
and the next we hear of him he is in the city of Philadelphia, 
the home of Mr. Boker, (and, it is understood, indorsed by 
Secretary Fish,) though he had never before been in the Unite 1 
States, where he was placed in a lucrative position in the Cen- 



no 


fennial Exhibition offices in that city. Yet it is said, anch I 
believe it has foundation in fact, that even this man, on coming: 
to comprehend the infamous wrong he had done me, and the- 
terrible injury inflicted on my family, made two attempts—one- 
in November and again in December, 1875—to see Secretary 
Fish for the purpose of explaining and modifying liis report, 
but the great Secretary would neither admit nor hear him a word 
on the subject. What was done was done , passed, settled, and 
then he had no further use for him or any explanations. 


LETTER No, XV. 

MY UNPOPULARITY, 

BaraczFs report, in which we see the same exacting manipu¬ 
lations, the same cunning hand of management, the same 
strategy that prompted the Yenni and Debbas complaints after 
the failure of the meeting of October 1st, the one fatally ante¬ 
dated September 1, 1874, thirty days before the indignation 
meeting, but never then seen, nor mentioned, so far as 
known by mortal man, nor thought of, as already stated, until 
after its fiasco and when the Debbas complaint was concocted 
between October 8th and 14th, its apparent date at Beirut* 
closes with a reflection upon me worthy of its author and of 
those with whom he consorted against mein that city. He fills 
his nefarious document with causeless scandal—much, he dis¬ 
tinctly affirms, at the suggesstion of Rev. Dr. and his son Ed¬ 
ward A. Van Dyck—and seals it with the statement which 
would lead a stranger to suppose that my life as Consul in 
Syria was really so corrupt and so well known to be that I 
lived as an outcast, ostracised by everybody and having no 
sympathy and no friends—that every man Is hand was against 
me, and that my reputation and influence were wholly de¬ 
stroyed. 

The answer to this defamation involves a personal allusion 
to my real status in Syria which I would gladly forego, but I 
cannot make a reply to such a charge without showing the real 
facts of the case, and hence I shall proceed to relate how mat¬ 
ters justly stood, and leave the public to judge how far Baraczi is 
supported in this wanton, cruel, and calumnious representation. 

1. In the first place, I would say if I had limited my per¬ 
sonal unpopularity to the small clique and ring of conspirators 
who sought from before my arrival to my departure “ the 
flaming life of Syria ” my downfall, and hesitated at no means 



Ill 


to accomplish it, it would have had some appearance of truth; 
tor in shame and sorrow be it said, that after my removal from 
the Consulate, and during the long and dreary months of un¬ 
certainty and painful illness of my family which followed, not 
one ot this missionary cabal, nor any others they could influ¬ 
ence, or any members of their famiiies ever called upon us, 
inquired after our welfare, or showed us any kind of sympathy 
or care whatever. Indeed, in some cases the ostracism went 
so far that even the children of these excellent missionary 
families were not allowed to call upon or associate with my 
children, and they turned their back upon us as resolutely as 
if we had been so many lepers left alone to perish without the 
aid even of the fugitive charity accorded to the beggar of the 
■street! 

But while these few' fellow-Christians and fellow-country¬ 
men -extended no hand of fellowship, showed no sign of 
Christian regard or sympathy, I must ever be grateful to a 
kind and watchful Providence for the many real friends who 
gathered around us, not only from our own race and nation¬ 
ality, but from those who belonged to foreign countries, and 
who yet recognized the grand principle that we were human, 
and that all mankind are a brotherhood entitled to courtesy 
and the claims of humanity, 

2. But even of those who were at first through misrepre¬ 
sentations driven into a show of opposition there were four 
men who very soon discovered the nature of the conspiracy, 
and who, as in duty bound, hastened to wash' their hands of 
it. These were Bev. Mr. Pinkerton (a native of Tennessee), 
whose letter on the subject I have already published; Mr. 
Samuel Halleck, a relative, I believe, of the family of the 
poet Fitz Green Halleck, and manager of the American Mis¬ 
sion Press at Beirut; Dr. Matheny, Consular Agent at Latakia, 
and Dr. Lewis at Beirut. It is to Manager Halleck that Min¬ 
ister Boker alludes in one of his letters to me as having the 
manliness to withdraw his name from the memorial protest 
sent by the conspirators to his Legation under date September 
16, 1874. Dr. Matheny, as soon as he understood the nature 
and animus of the machinations againt me, left his residence 
and came to Beirut and made a full explanation and an ample 
apology to me, assuring me that when, at the earnest solicita¬ 
tion of the Van Dycks, father and son, he was induced to send 
his proxy for the public meeting of October 1,1874, he had no 
idea of the spirit which animated the authors and managers of 
that meeting, or he never would have consented to lend his 


r r>7 

i i-j 


n me fo if; and there is no denying that Dr. Van Dyck and 
Dr. Do t severely threatened and would have made war upon 
Mr. Halleck for his withdrawal from the protest against my 
dismissal of Dragomans, and had him dismissed from his posi¬ 
tion in the Press, if they had dared to do it. Put Mr. Halleck 
was too well known and too valuable in the service of the 
mission work to he thus summarily dispensed with. Dr. Lewis 
neither sympathized with nor took any part in the public meet¬ 
ing. These four gentlemen, as was also Dr. AVotabet, were 
ever after friendly to me and to my family, and I have no 
question that they deeply regretted that any such scandal and 
move had been made against me. 

8. Is or did I think that the Rev. Dr. H. H. Jessup fully 
sympathized with the high-lianded and scandalous measures 
which the Van Dycks and Dr. Post were ready to adopt. It 
was most likely due to his influence in part, at least, that the 
paper adopted by the meeting of October 1st (else Mr. Halleck 
would not have signed it) was greatly toned down from what 
it was expected and intended by the originators to have been. 
But Dr. Jessup failed in his duty in not bringing to my notice 
the letter and perjury of Yemii, and giving me a full and 
candid opportunity to meet that cunningly and strategically 
fabricated statement (purporting to have been first sent to him 
the day it was dated) of that Christian convert on the spot 
when it was first received by him before ever he consented, if 
he did at all, to .let it go out of his hands to the Legation at 
Constantinople, or even if he ever saw it prior to October 14,. 
1874! 

4. That the American-German colonists, residents at Haifa, 
at the foot of Mount Carmel, to whom a copy of the call for 
the indignation meeting of October 1, 1874, was sent with the 
full knowledge, however, that in the ordinary course of things 
it could not reach them in time to make their arrangements to 
be present—indeed that they would not leave their homes and 
business and families to attend or countenance such a meet¬ 
ing, and were not expected to attend it—may be allowed to 
speak for themselves on the question and of my removal, I 
append a copy of their memorial sent to the Secretary of State, 
Mr. Fish, under date of May 30, 1875, as follows: 

“Sir: The undersigned, citizens of the United States, of the 
American-German colony at Haifa, Syria, in the Empire of Turkey, 
most respectfully represent to yourself, and through you to the 
President of the United States, that we have heard with profound 
regret that our honored representative in the Consulate at Beirut— 


113 


Colonel George S. Fisher—should be recalled when he has just be¬ 
gun to be, as we believe, the most useful Consul we have had for 
years, and whose experience and knowledge of Consular business, 
and affairs of our own country, the rights of all American citizens, 
and the affairs of this Empire, is becoming daily more important. 

We are aware of some of the influences that have conspired or 
been used against him ever since his first coming to Syria, es¬ 
pecially in its pretended public meetings called of ‘ all Americans 
in Syria’ about his change of office Dragomans—-a matter with 
which we had no concern, and which we conceive was his clear 
prerogative of office—and a matter about which we could not justly 
interfere, and which meeting we did not attend. 

We beg respectfully to enter our most solemn protest against these 
influences and interference with his office business, and remonstrate 
against his removal by reason of his official changes, or any means 
in the present state of affairs in Syria, firmly believing that his in¬ 
tegrity and fidelity to the discharge of his Consulate duties cannot 
be improved upon by any inexperienced or new man the Govern¬ 
ment could send here. 

We sincerely hope Col. Fisher will not be removed—and if he 
has been removed, that he be reinstated, and may live many years 
to fill the honored position he does with the highest credit and sat¬ 
isfaction to the Government. 

Your most obedient, humble servants, 

[Signed] 

Jacob Schumacher,* 

George Scheerer, 

A. H. Hengi^h, 

Michel Scheerer, 

A. Struve, 

Chas. A. Unger, 

We concur in this petition. 

[Signed.] 

Samuel Halleck, 

B. F. Pinkerton, 


Charles Oldorf, 

F. W. Kraiss, 

J. F. Waterstreet, 

G. Deuninger, 
Jacob Keil, 
Nicholas Seitz. 


H. Z. Sneersohn, 
H. Naggiar. 


It is also well known that tlie Rev. Mr. Calhoun, of Abeih, 
one of the purest and best of men, a veteran missionary of the 
Cross, in Syria, now deceased, together with his son, Charles 
Wm. Calhoun, and Rev. Mr. Bird, also Drs. Lewis and \\ r or- 
tabet, all heartily disapproved of the protest of the 16th Sep¬ 
tember, and of the call for a public meeting proposed for Octo¬ 
ber 1, 1874, and that they positively withstood the most urgent 
and pressing appeals from Rev. Dr. Van Dyck and Dr. Post to 
sanction said meeting by their presence or by proxy, and, finally, 

*Mr. Schumacher is our Consular Agent at Haifa and Acre. 


15 




114 


in the most decided manner, refused so to do. 1 believe it is 
also a fact that the Rev. Dr. Thomson, of “ the Land and the 
Book,” a close relative of the Yan Dycks, on his return to 
Syria, in December, 1874, condemned the whole matter; and 
it is certain that he called upon myself and family with cor- 
dialtv on several occasions thereafter. 

But long before the Haifa American-German colonists' doc¬ 
ument, endorsed by the four American citizeus of Beirut, had 
reached its destination calumnv had done its work; the re- 
rnoval had been made, and my successor, in eighteen days 
after, viz., June 17tli, arrived and superceded me in office 

5 I have already spoken of my standing with the local 
Turkish authorities, and the public testimony to the same 
given by the Spanish, French, and Italian Consuls. Some of 
my consular colleagues, it is true, had apparently taken sides 
with my enemies, and had actually gone so far as to retail their 
gossip and slander, especially of Consular Clerk Yan Dyck, 
his father, (Rev. Dr. Yan Dyck,) and Dr. Post, in communica¬ 
tions to their respective Legations at Constantinople, even be¬ 
fore my arrival in Syria—before they had met me or had seen 
me—and had the slightest opportunity of personal acquaintance, 
(notoriously the English Consul General,) as clearly known to 
and stated by Minister Boker in his letter, already published, 
dated October 17,1874. This unheard of breach of diplomatic 

and official courtesy and comity they committed from motives 

#• * 

and influences best known to themselves ; but surely they could 
have no motive which would be justified by Christian, honor¬ 
able, or high minded gentlemen. But notwithstanding this 
extraordinary and shameful fact, to them, (never rebuked by 
Mr. Secretary Fish,) my relations with my colleagues, the local 
Turkish civil and military officials, the Governor-General of 
Syria, Assad Pasha, (afterwards poisoned at Smyrna,) and the 
Governor-General of Lebanon, Rustem Pasha, were always 
those of great respect and dignified social personal intercourse, 
tip to the day of our departure we were always most cordially 
invited and welcomed to all the receptions and parties of ITis 
Excellency, Rustem Pasha. 

6. Our latter sojourn at Beirut, where smiles had been few 
and frowns had been many and cold enough from the cabal 
that sought our removal, was sweetened nevertheless by num¬ 
berless evidences of genuine friendship from among the oldest 
and best of its residents—families who have lived longest there, 
many, many years—English, German, French, Italian, Greek, 
native Syrian, and two American missionary families beside 


I 


115 

Mr. Halleck’s. There were many in Beirut who were greatly 
grieved and shocked at the way in which we were compelled 
to leave its shores; such friends as Mr. Hal leek, Mr. Watkins, 
(now of Cyprus,) Hr. Brigstoke, Mr. Jago English Vice-Con¬ 
sul; Dr. Wortabet and his two excellent sons, Don Quintana, 
the Spanish Consul; Mr. Nixon, the Danish Consul; Mr. Cor¬ 
nish, Superintendent Engineer Beirut Water Works Company; 
Messrs. Christian and Cliristmann, of the’Imperial Ottoman 
Banque ; Mr. Wm. Black and his dear family of girls, Mr. and 
Mrs. Mott and all the ladies of the British Svrian Mission, the 
Rev. Mr. Robertson, of the Scotch Presbyterian Mission; Dr. 
Lewis and wife, Madame Boucoupolo, son and daughters; Dr. 
Debrobosquet and wife, Madame Pestalozzi, and numbers of 
others, who knew all the circumstances of our life in Syria, 
and who remained constant to the last, can never, never be for¬ 
gotten 

Nor must I forget the veteran Achmet and his ever faithful 
sons, the cavasses or guardsmen of the Consulate for so many, 
many vears. It is true they are Mohammedans, a people whom 
these American missionaries have gone ostensibly to Syria to 
try to convert to Christianity; but so far as their treatment of 
mvself was concerned, it was much more Christian than that 
of some of these styled “good missionaries.” These two men, 
Achmet and his eldest son, (contrast the Christian teacher Van 
Dyck, father and son,) were my steadfast friends, firm and un¬ 
flinching and unpurchasable to the end. Everything was done 
to turn them against me; but they could neither be coaxed nor 
driven into the conspiracy. To have seen Achmet’s kind, beam¬ 
ing old face, full of feeling, his eyes overflowing with tears 
streaming down his furrowed cheeks, as he clasped me like a 
child involuntarily in his arms, and, according to Moslem cus¬ 
tom, impressed his farewell kisses upon each cheek, and then 
my forehead, the dear, good Christian lady in Ohio who 
“thinks (see the Presbyterian Weekly, of Baltimore, March 
6th, 1879,) that Col. Fisher does not write in a very Christian 
spirit ” would have been, no doubt, surprised. She would her¬ 
self have been melted with the scene, and might, perhaps, have 
wondered that the Rev. Dr. Van Dyck, “ the Pope of the Syrian 
Mission,” as he is freely styled by many Syrians, was not there 
to give us at least his farewell blessing ! “Blessed,” indeed, 
“are the peace makers, for they shall be called the children of 
God.” Again permit me to say, what a contrast between Ach¬ 
met the follower of Mahomet, and the Van Dycks and their 
co-conspirators with Dr. Post, Christian ministers, who Achmet 




116 


knew so well had followed me with their determined and relent¬ 
less persecution from first to last! 

I have mentioned but few of the names only of those who 
showed us regard and sympathy through the severe ordeal that 
came upon us—and I know there are many more in Beirut 
whose names I could mention, hut space forbids, who would 
earnestly contest the conclusion of Baraczi’s Report as a false, 
shameless and calumnious defamation of my good name, and 
who, if their eyes shall ever behold this revelation of the con¬ 
tents of that Report, will be astonished at the deceit and au¬ 
dacity which were requisite to concoct it. 

They all knew how we had suffered in mind, body, estate— 
how we waited patiently and long for justice from the Gov¬ 
ernment and missionaries who had so grievously and cause¬ 
lessly assailed and injured us, and how we had waited in vain ! 
To that little company of friends who accompanied us to the 
water's edge on our final departure with heartfelt benedictions 
every step, and some on board ship, we still wave our most 
affectionate adieu. They cannot be forgotten ! 

7. Of course the public will understand that much history 
may be made in the course of a single year. I have assumed 
to give in this narrative only a few salient points pertaining to 
my own case as Consul at Beirut. I have not attempted to 
make an exposition of information which I derived there of 
the work which is done at this mission station; nor how the 
facts impressed me—that may be reserved for another publica¬ 
tion on some other occasion. Ror have I entered into a de¬ 
tailed history of each several transaction which I had with dif- 
ferent individuals. But I have given examples sufficient to 
show by what means the opposition was carried on against me, 
and how flagrant and cruel was the injustice of my removal. 
There never was the slightest foundation of truth for the scan¬ 
dals and libel of the “ Dodge letter.” It was a mass of un¬ 
mitigated calumny and defamation, and all its reports im¬ 
aginary and from an ill-tempered malevolence—a love of 
scandal. So likewise every report and allegation at Beirut was 
the rumor of idle gossip, malicious selfishness, mere suspicion, 
hearsay, perjury, and subornation of perjury—unfounded and 
unmitigated exaggeration and calumny. Indeed, the very 
nature and origin of the acts charged against me should have 
been their own sufficient refutation. The principal witnesses(!) 
against me (where sworn, when, and by whom ?) were by no 
means of blameless reputation—their motive of misrepresenta¬ 
tion and my conviction were clear—and their evidence, so far 


117 


sis it can be called evidence—and so far as it tended to dis¬ 
parage and defame me—was more what I intended to do than 
what I actually did —and was unworthy of the slightest weight 
or credence in any judicial tribunal or before any pure and 
upright man. And the chief conspirators not only knew this , 
but one of their friends and colleague in the Beirut mission 
work, Rev. Dr. H. H. Jessup, freely at one time admitted this. 
And when, subsequent to my removal, he by invitation visited 
my residence in January, 1876, he frankly and voluntarily ac¬ 
knowledged his belief that “great injustice, he had no doubt, 
had been done me in the transactions”—meaning specially the 
Yenni case—and “ that his conviction was that there were great 
errors in translations!” But he did not then say when he first 
saw the Yenni letter. 

8. In this outline of an experience (many details of which 
I have been obliged to exclude for want of space) it will be 
-specially noted perhaps that I have so far forborne to animad¬ 
vert on the gross disparity between Minister Boker’s abundant 
promises and his concluding act in my case. That he professed 
one thing and did another, is, upon the face of the documents 
I have already published, unquestionable. "What motive could 
have led him, after having so solemnly and emphatically as¬ 
sured me that “justice should be done and the blame laid where 
it belonged,” “that whoever suffered it should not be the 
innocent,” to send Baraczi’s report to the State Department 
without even letting me know one word of its contents or 
giving me the slightest opportunity to explain or refute and 
traverse its false and libelous statements, is incomprehensible. 
Had he suddenly found himself between two ends of a con- 
spiracy—one at Washington and one at Beirut—which he saw 
it was impossible to withstand? Did he finally succumb to 
the designs of the missionaries, their friends in Yew York, 
and Mr. Hamilton Fish at the State Department? Was he 
unwilling any longer to antagonize this powerful combination, 
although he knew that not to do so would work incalculable 
injustice and injury to me ? After his special note of January 
7, 1875, to Mr. Fish in my behalf, when he knew and had be¬ 
fore him my denial in the Debbas and Yenni complaints and 
my explanation of the Beauboucher case, and “saw no danger 
for me,” was he made to understand that the decree had gone 
forth against me, and that there was no further use of resist¬ 
ance ? Or had the prospect of his transfer to the Court of St. 
Petersburg so charmed his senses as to render him indifferent 
to all affairs in Turkey, which he was so soon to leave behind 



ITS 


him, that he might luxuriate in the splendor of the paLces of 
the Czar of all the llussias ? He certainly “saw the rocks 
ahead,” hut did not, as he promised, “sing out” as a “friend 
on shore.” He saw me in the rapids, swept on the furious 
tide of missionary calumny, as Baraczi’s report confesses, “ re¬ 
posing exclusively upon the maliciousness of Rev. Dr. Van Dyck” 
yet never made a sound of alarm. In the judgmentof charity 
perhaps we ought to believe that he never read Baraczi’s re¬ 
port, but sent it at once to Mr. Secretary Fish without the 
slightest reflection upon the consequences of that document. 
He was himself to he promoted to new pastures and higher 
honors; what mattered it to him that I should he dismissed in 
disgrace, trampled into dust, not only unheard, but positively 
ignorant of the allegations upon which my downfall was ac¬ 
complished ! Perhaps this was worldly wise in him, but who 
can say that it was not a violation of all his correspondence 
and good faith with me—a treacherous shrinking from obliga¬ 
tion (not imposed by me—) an utter abandonment of what he 
had voluntarily led me to expect, and I had a right to expect 
from him ? Perhaps in his character as a poet he availed him¬ 
self of “ a poet’s license; ” but his two letters of October, 1874, 
and January, 1875, and one of April 26, 1875, supplemented 
by Consul-General Goodenow’s letter of April 29, 1875, deny¬ 
ing all knowledge of the cause of mg removal , are unmistakable 
prose to me, and will ever remain a standing evidence of his— 
well, call it inconsistency, not to say downright duplicity. His 
pretense to a lady overwhelmned with sorrow that “ he knew 
nothing of the cause of the removal of your husband at Wash¬ 
ington” was, to say the least of it, a most unmanly evasion of 
the result of his own act in forwarding Baraczi’s report to the 
State Department, while he knew , at the same time, that I was 
utterly unaware and in the dark as to the contents of that re¬ 
port, or even that a report had been made to him. Some 
people would call this a lie; but, as he was between two fires, 
courage yielded to selfishness—to personal aggrandizement. 
The poet was promoted, while I was unhailed, unhonored, and 
unsung. As good Aunt Dorothy said of the immortal John 
Milton’s godliness on one occasion when he was not perfect, 
“Poor gentleman, he is a poet; and poets cannot always be 
expected to keep straight like reasonable people! ” 

But if there is, as we believe, a Providence that shapes our 
ends, may not some good still come from this sore trial; may 
not the men who have done me and mine so great a wrong be 
brought at last to acknowledge the injustice and the injury, 


119 


though it is beyond their power ever fully to repair it ? Ameri¬ 
can Christians, citizens, lovers of truth and fairness and right 
will probably soon see. 

9. And now, in bringing this series of letters to a close, the 
question may very likely arise, what I expect to gain by making 
this exposition of my affairs to the public ? In reply to this I 
may say that so far as it concerns the great and grievous wrong— 
nay, the unparalleled crime —done me, I have scarcely a hope, 
no hope I may say, that it will ever be made right or that my 
enemies will ever acknowledge it. The Rev. D. Stuart Dodge 
is somewhere away from his own country whenever the libel 
suit now pending against him is pressed for a trial. The Rev. 
Dr. Van Dyck is still “ the good president” of the Syrian 
Protestant College and “ the father ” of the Beirut Mission, 
whom kind friends in America have supposed incapable of such 
a wrong, or even “maliciousness,” such as the “report” of 
Baraczi says he was guilty. Dr. Post is likewise still at Beirut 
in the enjoyment of a most lucrative income from his profes¬ 
sion and salary, and both these men were secure in their pro¬ 
tection by my successor in office from my most earnest efforts 
to brins; them to trial in his Consular Court. Edward A. Van 
Dyck, the chief organizer of mischief and villainy, and a gross 
violator of all Consular regulations and official subordination, 
a suborner of perjury, is still continued a Consular Clerk of the 
United States Government, while the tools lie instigated to com¬ 
mit perjury are unpunished, hold their offices as Consular Agents 
under my successor at liberty to pursue their chosen way, 
and Baraczi has vanished from the scene like Asmodeus or 
a shadow of evil! Really I have no power to reach these men 
unless I can get them into home courts, and then,like “Dodge,” 
they may evade and “ dodge the issue” until I am wearied and 
worn out. Xor have I any wish to parade further before the 
public the disasters brought by these wretched machinations 
upon myself and family. 

10. My principal object in this publication will be gained if 
the candid reader of these letters among my countrymen shall 
be led to discover how a Secretary of State may treat one of 
his subordinates with audacious impunity and the coldest 
blooded indifference; how a missionary of the Cross, conniv¬ 
ing with his dishonest, irreligious, selfish, and truculent son, 
may prostitute his holy calling to most unholy ends; how a 
minister of Christ and a teacher of his Gospel of love may 
listen to the idle gossip and malice of a woman and become a 
tale-bearer, a false witness, and a slanderer of the lowest and 





1 20 


most despicable grade; and how all such proceedings, however 
harsh, cruel, libelous, and unjust, may be winked at by Courts,, 
Legations, and Department of State, by Missionary Boards ami 
Home committees, and how all these offenders may still be re¬ 
garded by the American Churches as saintly and heroic men 
who have taken their lives in their hands to go forth to convert 
Mahommedans, some of whose shoes lachet they are absolutely 
unworthy to look at, much more unloose, to the Christian faith. 
And if once more my own sad, sad experience may he held up to¬ 
others as a beacon of warning that they may be led to trust in 
the Justice of their Government as always purely administered 
in all its branches without favor or partiality, for, as has been 
shown, sometimes the honestv and sincerity of even its chief 
officials prove to be but wretched “broken reeds,” a vain and 
delusive support, remembering, as A 7 oung lias it, to 


“ Lean not Laxth—’twill pierce thee to the heart, 

At best a broken reed—oft times a spear f 

On its sharp point Peace bleeds and Hope expires V r 


I shall be satisfied; 1 shall say, Amen l indeed. 


ADDENDA. 


Just as the last form of this pamphlet is ready for the press,, 
the subjoined letter from Mr. Abela has come to hand, and 
without comment it will speak for itself. The matter is 
specially referred to on page 53 : 


Sidon, Syria, April 3,0, 1879. 


Mr. George S. Fisher : 

Dear Sir: Your favor of February 24th has been received, I 
was surprised at the charge you mention, viz : that by writing any 
person you had demanded of me jQioo, and compelled me to pay 
that sum under penalty of losing my office as Consular Agent du¬ 
ring the period of your Consulate in Beirut. And lest my name 
may have been used by mistake in connection with those of the 
other Consuls, or any persons whatever, I do sincerely affirm that 
no such proposals or threats were ever made to me, either directly 
or indirectly, by you. 

Deeply regretting the necessity for such a letter, and with feel¬ 
ings of esteem presenting my regards to all your family, 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 


Shibly Abela. 



V 










* 







































» 






















. 















































♦ 


• • 




























































































I 











— 

























































































